THE 
 
 REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 
 
 Tariff Hitiory from (he Revision of 1907 to the 
 Upriung of the West in I9I0 
 
 By EDWARD PORRITT
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 f9
 
 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM
 
 VvXa 
 
 THE 
 
 Revolt in Canada 
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 
 
 Tariff History from the Revision of 1907 
 to the Uprising of the West in 19 10 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD PORRITT 
 
 Sometime London Editor of the Manchester Examiner, Author of 
 
 "The Englishman at Home," "The Unreformed House of 
 
 Commons," and " Sixty Years of Protection in Canada : Where 
 
 Industry Leans on the Politician " 
 
 " Of all the many objections to protection, the capital one is this : 
 that it taints every source of public life in the country in 
 which it exists."— Lord Rosebery, 1903 
 
 Published for 
 THE COBDEN CLUB, Caxton House, Westminster, S.W. 
 
 BY 
 
 CASSELL AND COMPANY, LIMITED 
 
 La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C. 
 
 1911 
 
 [all rights reserved]
 
 " In my own country I have witnessed the insatiable growth of that 
 form of state socialism styled protection, which I believe has 
 done more than any other single cause to foster class legislation 
 and create inequality of fortune, to corrupt pubhc Ufe, to banish 
 men of independent mind and character from the pubUc councils, 
 to lower the tone of national representation, blunt pubUc con- 
 science, create false standards in the popular mind, to familiarise 
 it with reliance on state aid and guardianship in private affairs, 
 divorce ethics from pohtics, and place politics upon the low 
 level of a mercenary scramble." 
 
 Thomas F. Bayard, United States Minister 
 in London, 1893-1897, at Edinburgh, November 7, 1895. 
 
 When the law compels me to contribute my just quota to the 
 support of the Government, that is taxation ; but when it 
 compels me to contribute to the support of private enterprise, 
 that is robbery." 
 
 Platform of the Patrons of Industry, 
 
 Brandon, Manitoba, 1892. 
 
 This work is published by the Cobden Club, The Committee of 
 the Club do not, however, hold themselves responsible for all 
 the expressions of opinion contained in the book.
 
 Hr 
 
 ! 7^ Op 
 
 uJ 
 
 C/5 
 
 >- 
 
 C3c: 
 
 S TO THE MEN AND WOMEN OF 
 
 THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES 
 
 who in the last thirty years have added the fair 
 
 expanse of country between the Great Lakes and 
 
 the Rocky Mountains to the area of service and of 
 
 1^1 civilisation within the Dominion of Canada, to the 
 
 92 men and women who, like George Hearst, "plain, 
 
 ^ honest man and good miner," are taking their wealth 
 
 cjfrom the earth, and, in taking it, " filch from no 
 
 ^ man's store and lessen no man's opportunity," 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED 
 
 C3 
 
 C3 
 
 3= 
 
 38166r>
 
 PREFACE 
 
 For thirty years I have been a student of the working 
 and history of representative institutions, and it has 
 been my fortune to have had exceptional oppor- 
 tunities for this life-long study in England, the 
 United States and Canada. I approach the study 
 from the standpoint of a strong and convinced 
 believer in democracy. If it should be objected that 
 in these pages, as in my earlier book on protection 
 in Canada, there is some plain speaking — some 
 description of political conditions as I have found 
 them — I should like it kept in mind that I write in 
 the strong conviction that better conditions for all 
 classes have followed the extension of democracy in 
 England and in the British oversea Dominions. 
 
 Democracy in Canada could be more untram- 
 melled than democracy in England or in the United 
 States. There is no constitutional barrier to democ- 
 racy in Canada. There is no House of Lords, and 
 Canada has no such rigid constitution as the United 
 States. Nowhere in the English-speaking world 
 might democracy have had a freer field than in 
 the Dominion of Canada. But, as the history of the 
 last hundred years abundantly shows, special and 
 peculiar perils attend democracy in all new and 
 developing countries. Many social and economic 
 advantages there undoubtedly are in a new country 
 that has never had to wrest its political, economic, 
 and social freedom from the Old Feudalism. But 
 a developing country, with most men intent on their 
 own material and social advancement, grasping
 
 viii PREFACE 
 
 eagerly the opportunities that a new country offers, 
 and giving little continuous heed to politics, affords 
 a magnificent field for the uprearing of the New 
 Feudalism. Such a New Feudalism has imposed 
 itself on the United States; such a New Feudalism 
 has imposed itself to an equal if not to a greater 
 degree on Canada; and it is with the popular up- 
 rising against the New Feudalism in the Dominion 
 of Canada that these pages are concerned. 
 
 E. P. 
 
 Hartford, Conn., U.S.A. 
 November, 1910.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 The Capture of the Liberal Party by the New 
 
 Feudalism i 
 
 CHAPTER n 
 The Campaign of Deception .... 17 
 
 CHAPTER HI 
 Mergers and Water Wagon Finance . . 36 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 The Merger Era . . . . . .60 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 Tariff Protection, Bounties, and Mergers . 71 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 Home and Export Prices for Farm Implements 79 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 The Birth and Feeding-Bottle Stage of an 
 
 Infant Industry iii 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 Dumping with the Aid of Bounties . . . 131
 
 X CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 The Burden on the Farmer .... 141 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 The Farmers' Organisations of Ontario and 
 
 THE Prairie Provinces 164 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier of 1893 and 1910 . . 176 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier' s Tour of the West . 184 
 
 Index 229
 
 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE CAPTURE OF THE LIBERAL PARTY BY THE 
 NEW FEUDALISM 
 
 " If a public man avows certain principles, agitates those 
 principles and seeks to overthrow a Government to establish 
 those principles, and when he attains power laughs at his pro- 
 fessions and casts his principles to the winds, he is aiming a 
 blow at political morality." — George Brown, Founder of the 
 Toronto Globe. 
 
 " The most notable tendency of the present time is seen in 
 the growing severance between the Canadian Parliament and the 
 Canadian people." — Goldwin Smith, March, 1910. 
 
 Three years ago I wrote a history of Protection in 
 the Dominion of Canada covering the period from 
 1846 to 1907.* I began with the year in which all 
 the British North American provinces — Ontario, 
 Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince 
 Edward Island and Newfoundland — as a result of 
 the adoption of Free Trade by Great Britain secured 
 their complete fiscal freedom. The story was carried 
 down to 1907, when for the second time the National 
 Policy tariff of 1879, enacted by the late Sir John A. 
 Macdonald and the Conservatives, was tenderly and 
 sympathetically revised and extended by the Laurier 
 or Liberal Government that had come into power at 
 the Dominion general election of 1896. In this 
 history I traced the beginnings of the movement for 
 protection at Hamilton, Ontario, in 1847; detailed 
 
 * " Sixty Years of Protection in Canada." Macmillan & Co., 
 1908. 
 
 B I
 
 2 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 the circumstances under which the United Provinces 
 of Ontario and Quebec were first committed to a 
 protective policy by the Gait tariff of 1858; and 
 showed how the policy of 1858 was enlarged into the 
 National Policy of 1879 by Sir John A. Macdonald 
 and the Conservatives who were continuously in power 
 at Ottawa from 1878 to 1896. I also described the 
 persistent and vigorous opposition of the Liberals to 
 every feature of the National Policy during these 
 seventeen years ; and showed how Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 and Sir Richard Cartwright, the leaders of the 
 Liberal party, immediately on their accession to 
 power, betrayed the cause which they had so strenu- 
 ously and so vehemently advocated. This betrayal 
 took place in 1897, when the Liberal leaders went 
 completely over to the protectionists, carried the 
 Liberal Government and the Liberal party at Ottawa 
 with them, and adopted and greatly extended the 
 National Policy that Sir John A. Macdonald had 
 fastened on the Dominion. 
 
 Further in this survey of the tariff history of the 
 Dominion, published in 1907, I told the story of the 
 beginning of preferences for Great Britain, first 
 embodied in the tariff of 1897, ^^^ I traced the many 
 and considerable whittlings down of the preference 
 which, at the instigation of Canadian manufacturers 
 who objected to British competition, were effected in 
 1904 and again at the revision of the tariff in 1907. 
 The agitation which led to the revision of 1907 was 
 also described. It began in 1902 with the Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association — the only high tariff 
 organisation in the Dominion. It was pressed with 
 much persistence until 1904, when the Laurier 
 Government, on the eve of a general election, easily 
 capitulated. At the revision of 1907, as I showed 
 in my earlier contribution to the tariff history of the 
 Dominion, there was scarcely a manufacturer who
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 3 
 
 was not adequately rewarded for the persistence of 
 the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in pressing 
 the Government for more protection. There were 
 many inroads on the British preference in response 
 to this pressure. Protective duties of scores of manu- 
 facturers were increased, and in other instances the 
 duties on raw materials were reduced without any 
 adequate corresponding reduction in the duties on 
 the products of these manufacturers. 
 
 Moreover, in 1907 the bounty poHcy, originated 
 by Sir John A. Macdonald and the Conservatives in 
 1883, and adopted and enormously extended by the 
 Liberal Government between 1897 ^^^ iQo?? was 
 continued for another term of four years, and, in a 
 word, the revision of 1907 constituted nearly as great 
 a triumph for all the protected interests in the 
 Dominion as the abandonment of the principles of 
 the Liberal party in regard to the tariff and bounties 
 in 1897. Finally, in my history of protection from 
 1846 to 1907 I sought to show how the protected and 
 special interests — what Sir Wilfrid Laurier, their 
 champion since 1897, has recently described as 
 "vested interests" which must be safeguarded — were 
 in easy and complete control of Parliament and 
 Government at Ottawa. I traced how this control 
 was acquired in 1896-7, how it has since been main- 
 tained, and I showed how hopeless in 1907 — at the 
 time I wrote — seemed the position of millions of the 
 people of Canada who derived no advantage from 
 protection, but who were compelled to carry its 
 burdens and submit to the statutory exactions of the 
 scores of trusts and combines which owed their 
 monopoly and their unchecked pow'er of extortion 
 to the control of Parliament, of the Government, of 
 party organisation and machinery, and of the daily 
 press by the privileged interests which constitute the 
 New Feudalism in Canada.
 
 4 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 With the Conservative party avowedly protec- 
 tionist and always eager to increase protective duties, 
 and with the official Liberals also committed to 
 protection, and since 1897 continuously making the 
 fiscal system of increasing advantage to the pro- 
 tected interests, Parliamentary institutions and the 
 party system on the tariff and bounty questions had 
 by 1907 completely broken down. Until 1896 the 
 New Feudalism had possession only of the Conserva- 
 tive party. By 1906 it was in control of both political 
 parties, and from 1897 it had in the Laurier Cabinet 
 a Government that was always ready to do its bid- 
 ding. From 1879 to 1896 every proposal to increase 
 a protective duty or re-enact a bounty law was 
 strongly opposed by the Liberal minority in the 
 House of Commons. Every such proposal by Con- 
 servative and National Policy Governments was also 
 vigorously opposed on the platform in the con- 
 stituencies from Cape Breton to Vancouver Island 
 by Liberal speakers. All these proposals, and the 
 National Policy in its entirety, were condemned by 
 resolution at Liberal party conventions, and were 
 also condemned by the daily newspapers in all the 
 large cities which in those days supported the Liberal 
 party. During those seventeen years, when a Con- 
 servative Government made a concession to the 
 privileged interests, it knew that it must confront the 
 resolute opposition of Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir 
 Wilfrid Laurier, and the Liberal party in the House 
 of Commons. It also knew that political capital 
 would be made out of every such concession at the 
 general election. 
 
 Liberal Governments from 1897 to 1907, as I 
 showed, had no such fears. No such restraining in- 
 fluences had checked them in making new conces- 
 sions to the privileged interests. The Conservative 
 Opposition in the House of Commons, which since
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 5 
 
 1896 has had no policy except that of more protection 
 and less British preference, was always ready to 
 endorse any extension of the statutory privileges of 
 the New Feudalism ; and while at first there were 
 Liberals in the House of Commons who bitterly re- 
 sented the betrayal of 1897, these men were appeased 
 in the usual Ottawa fashion — by appointment to 
 office or the promise of an appointment, or they 
 dropped out in 1900, in disgust at the cynical aban- 
 donment in 1897 of ^11 th^t Liberalism had stood for 
 in Canada from the days of William Lyon Mackenzie 
 to the incoming of the Laurier administration. 
 
 In the first year of the Parliament of 1896-1900 — 
 the year of the great betrayal — there were objections 
 in the Liberal caucus at Ottawa to the capitulation 
 to the New Feudalism, and in particular to the fulfil- 
 ment by the Laurier Government of the bargain made 
 with the protected manufacturers of Ontario on the eve 
 of the general election at which, after eighteen years in 
 opposition, the Liberals were returned to power. The 
 general election was on June 23rd. As late in the 
 electoral campaign as June iSth, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 
 by telegram from Black Lake, Quebec, assured a 
 Liberal candidate at Pictou, Nova Scotia, that the 
 policy to be followed by the Liberals, if they were 
 successful at the polls, was that " laid down in the 
 Liberal platform adopted at the Ottawa convention " 
 of 1893* — the platform that denounced the National 
 Policy, and pledged the Liberals to a tariff for 
 revenue only. But, as is now notorious, f while 
 Liberal candidates in 1896 as late as June 18 were 
 seeking election on the Ottawa programme, a bargain 
 had been made between a manufacturer of Toronto, 
 named Bertram, and other manufacturers there, and 
 
 * Cf. House of Commons Debates, April 26, 1909. 
 
 + Cf. Letter from Mr. William Wright, Conservative member 
 for Muskoka, Ontario, in the Sun, Toronto, Sept. 21, 1910, and 
 editorial in the Dominion, Ridgetown, Ontario, Aug. 11, 1910.
 
 6 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 men high in the inner councils of the Liberal party. 
 These men, acting for the Liberal party, had given 
 an assurance that Liberal success at the then pending 
 general election should carry no danger to the tariff 
 protection enjoyed by these Toronto manufacturers 
 under Conservative Governments since 1879. Thus, 
 while four or five hundred thousand electors in 1896 
 were voting with the Liberal party, as they supposed 
 for the sweeping reform of the fiscal system to which 
 the party was pledged by the Ottawa programme of 
 1893, and by countless speeches of Sir Richard Cart- 
 wright and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the protected manu- 
 facturers were looking on with indifference, because 
 they had guarantees from men of the inner councils 
 of the Liberal party that whichever way the election 
 went the National Policy was in no danger. 
 
 There were during the earlier months of the 
 Laurier Government of 1 896-1 900 objections from a 
 few independent members to this betrayal of 
 Liberalism. One of these members was from Lisgar, 
 a Manitoba constituency. He expostulated privately 
 with the Premier on the violation of the pledges of 
 the Liberal party. "Sir Wilfrid slapped him on the 
 shoulder, and quite jovially and in a Mephisto-like 
 manner dismissed the whole question, with the re- 
 mark : ' Young man, you're too good for this 
 world.' " * Other Liberals of the House of Com- 
 mons of 1896-1900 who objected to the betrayal, as 
 Mr. Thomas Murray, Liberal member of that Parlia- 
 ment for Pontiac County, Ontario, told a meeting 
 at North Bay, on Sept. 26, 1908, were laughed at 
 by the official Liberals when they urged that the 
 pledges of the Ottawa programme were binding on 
 the Liberal party. f 
 
 * "Sir Wilfrid's Tour," Tribune, Winnipeg, Sept. 6, 1910. 
 t Cf. "A Liberal's Recantation," Witness, Montreal, Sept. 28,
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 7 
 
 As time went on Liberals in the House of Com- 
 mons — even the leaders of the Liberal party — became 
 openly cynical in regard to the betrayal of 1897. 
 Mr. R. L. Borden, the leader of the Conservative 
 Opposition, on one occasion called Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier's attention in the House of Commons to the 
 professions of the Liberal party from 1S79 to 1896, 
 and their attitude towards the National Policy after 
 they had come into power. " Well," replied the 
 Premier, "we are here, and you are there. What 
 are you going to do about it ? " * 
 
 In later Parliaments than that of 1 896-1900 there 
 were no objectors to the betrayal like the Liberal 
 members for Lisgar and Pontiac. The New 
 Feudalism by 1900 was in easy and secure control of 
 the Liberal Government and the Liberal majority in 
 the House of Commons. In Ottawa its control was 
 undisputed ; for a man who could not accept the 
 domination of the New Feudalism and do its bid- 
 ding need not seek nomination as a Parliamentary 
 candidate at Liberal conventions in the constituen- 
 cies. It would have been useless for him to make 
 the attempt; for the New Feudalism was in control 
 of the party machinery, and also of all the more 
 important so-called Liberal daily newspapers from 
 Halifax and St. John to Vancouver and Victoria. 
 Moreover, a candidate hostile to the privileged in- 
 terests could hope for no help from the Government ; 
 and without this help, even if he succeeded at the 
 election, there was no career for him either at Ottawa 
 or in his constituency. Under conditions as they 
 developed at Ottawa between 1897 and 1907 there 
 was really no place in the House of Commons for 
 an independent Liberal member. A member who 
 has been accepted as candidate by a Liberal associa- 
 
 * Speech by Mr. R. L. Borden, at Westmount, Montreal, 
 Oct. 15, 1908.
 
 8 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 tion, and who thus owes his election to a local Liberal 
 organisation, must act in caucus with the Liberals 
 at Ottawa, and support the Laurier Government at 
 every critical division in the House of Commons. 
 Otherwise he is soon reduced to a nonentity in Par- 
 liament and rendered of no account in his con- 
 stituency. 
 
 Ten resolute independent Liberals, with a leader 
 such as Sir Richard Cartwright was from 1878 to 
 1896, might not have been able to prevent the be- 
 trayal of 1897. Holding together, however, they 
 might have prevented some at least of the many con- 
 cessions to the privileged interests from 1897 to 1907. 
 In particular an independent group, with a leader 
 of such prominence in Parliament and in the con- 
 stituencies that the newspapers would have been com- 
 pelled to report his utterances, might certainly have 
 prevented the inroads on the British preference of 
 1904 and 1907, and the re-enactment of the bounty 
 laws that accompanied the last revision of the tariff. 
 
 Opportunity for organising such an independent 
 group was offered in the first two sessions of the 
 Parliament of 1 896-1 900. The opportunity was not 
 taken by the few members who at that time were 
 ridiculed by their Liberal colleagues for having 
 dreamed that the speeches of Sir Richard Cartwright 
 and Sir Wilfrid Laurier in opposition were sincere, 
 and laughed at for their conviction that the Liberal 
 party w'as bound by the pledges of the Ottawa 
 programme. 
 
 After 1900 conditions at Ottawa and in the local 
 associations of the Liberal party in the con- 
 stituencies afforded no opportunity for organising an 
 independent group which should be loyal to the 
 Liberalism of 1879-1896. The position of an inde- 
 pendent Liberal was untenable if not impossible; and 
 so with no opposition as regards protection from the
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM g 
 
 Conservatives, and with the Liberals in office more 
 protectionist than the Conservatives had been from 
 1879 to 1896, the Parliamentary institutions and the 
 party system of the Dominion by 1907 had com- 
 pletely broken down. One of the last utterances of 
 Mr. Goldwin Smith on Canadian politics emphasised 
 these new conditions at Ottawa. "The most notable 
 tendency of the present time," he said, within three 
 months of his death in June, 1910, "is seen in the 
 growing severance between the Canadian Parliament 
 and the Canadian people." * 
 
 As will be manifest when I come to quote in sub- 
 sequent pages the speeches of the representatives of 
 the grain growers to Sir Wilfrid Laurier during his 
 journey through Manitoba, Saskatchew^an, and 
 Alberta in the summer of 1910, the Government at 
 Ottawa has been in ignorance of the opinions and 
 convictions and desires of the larger part of the 
 electorate. After the election of 1896 it cannot be 
 claimed that general elections afforded any test of the 
 political leanings of the people of Canada, for the 
 reason that on the issue that touches every home in 
 the Dominion there was no real difference between 
 the Parliamentary candidates of the two political 
 parties. On the great issues of the day members 
 ceased to represent the view's of their constituents ; 
 so much so that no student of contemporary Cana- 
 dian politics, standing apart from both parties, and 
 unconnected with the New Feudalism, will deny that 
 the gap between the Government at Ottawa and the 
 people of Canada since 1897 has been as great and as 
 obvious as was the gap between the people of England 
 and the Government in the last half century of the 
 unreformed House of Commons. Students of Cana- 
 dian history must also make another admission. The 
 gap is as great as that which existed, in the era 
 
 * Su?i, Toronto, March 23, 1910.
 
 10 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 before the rebellions of 1837, between the Family 
 Compact and the unenfranchised people of Ontario, 
 who at that time were agitating for electoral and other 
 much-needed and long-overdue constitutional re- 
 forms. It needed the rebellions in Quebec and 
 Ontario to bring the Government in Downing Street 
 to the aid of the opponents of the Family Compact 
 rule. Gradually after 1837 democracy in Canada be- 
 came established with even larger powers than 
 democracy in England; but for all practical purposes 
 the power of democracy was for the time being van- 
 quished by the betrayal of 1896, when Parliamentary 
 institutions and the party system broke down as re- 
 gards any real representative service to the people of 
 the Dominion.* 
 
 To hold the allegiance of the Liberals in the con- 
 stituencies there was developed between 1897 and 1907 
 a movement originating at Ottawa for deceiving 
 people into a belief that Canada was under a fiscal 
 system quite diflferent from that for which Conserva- 
 tive Governments were responsible from 1879 to 1896. 
 Additions to the free list and reductions in duties — 
 mostly on raw materials and rarely of advantage to 
 consumers — as well as increases in revenue from re- 
 ceipts at the customs houses, were pointed to by 
 Liberal leaders, by Liberal members of the rank and 
 
 * " The cold truth is that the grain growers of the West and 
 their Ontario allies are engaged not merely in an economic struggle. 
 They are embarking on an effort to re-establish the proper functions 
 of representative institutions for the people of Canada and to 
 renovate the whole system of national life. The root of the evil 
 lies largely in our economic system. It corrupts our political system, 
 our political system corrupts and degrades the public administration, 
 and the corroding influence extends to the social system and business 
 life till the disease permeates the whole community. Every thinking 
 man realises the existence of gross evils in the body politic, and 
 would fain end them, but sees no feasible method and contents 
 himself with waiting until the trail is blazed. This service the 
 farmers' organisations are purposing to perform for the community 
 at large." — J. A. Stevenson, " The Battle for Democracy in 
 Canada," Grain Growers' Guide, Winnipeg, Nov. 2, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM ii 
 
 file, and by the Government press, as proof that the 
 Liberal Government had enacted tariffs for revenue 
 only. These, and the surpluses of income over ex- 
 penditure in the Dominion budget, were persistently 
 cited as proofs that the Liberal Government had re- 
 duced the protective duties in the spirit of the Ottawa 
 programme ; and it was as persistently and as 
 erroneously affirmed that any protection afforded to 
 Canadian manufacturers by the tarifTs of 1897 ^^^ 
 1907 was incidental to the raising of revenue by the 
 Dominion Government. 
 
 The lack of any foundation for such claim has, 
 I think, been proved in my earlier contribution to 
 the tariff history of the Dominion. If further and 
 more recent proof be needed, it was forthcoming in 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speeches in the West in July 
 and August, 1910, particularly in the speech at Red 
 Deer,* in which the Premier declared that in any 
 negotiations with the Government of the United 
 States for reciprocity, the " vested interests " of Cana- 
 dian manufacturers must be safeguarded. Here it is 
 only necessary to reiterate that, except for the British 
 preference of 1897, much reduced in value to Cana- 
 dian consumers and British exporters by the changes 
 dictated by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association 
 and the iron foundry interests of Londonderry and 
 Three Rivers in 1904 and 1907, there was no breach 
 in the National Policy between 1879 and the com- 
 pletion of the revision of the first Fielding tariff by 
 the House of Commons in the Parliamentary session 
 of 1906-7. 
 
 From 1879 to 1896 the National Policy was em- 
 bodied in only two sets of Acts of Parliament — the 
 tariff Acts of 1879, 1884 and 1894, ^nd the bounty 
 enactments of 1883, 1886 and 1892. Between 1897 
 and 1907 under Liberal administrations, National 
 
 * Cf. Globe, Toronto, Aug. 12, 1910.
 
 12 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Policy enactments assumed the proportions and 
 dignity of a code. There were two tariff Acts, and 
 six or seven bounty enactments under which largesse 
 direct from the Dominion Treasury was bestowed on 
 the iron and steel industry, on the manufacturers of 
 binder twine, and on the lead and petroleum indus- 
 tries. As a result of these bounty laws of 1897, 1899, 
 1901, 1903 and 1907, sixteen and a half million dollars 
 were between 1897 ^"d the end of 1910 bestowed on 
 iron and steel companies in Nova Scotia, Quebec and 
 Ontario. Comparatively little of this largesse 
 accrued to shareholders in these companies. Em- 
 ployees at the plants received only the market rates 
 for their labour. Canadian consumers enjoyed no 
 advantage in the price of the product. By far the 
 greater part of the sixteen and a half million dollars 
 accrued to three or four small groups of promoters, 
 with headquarters at Boston, Massachusetts, at 
 Halifax, Nova Scotia, at Montreal and at Hamilton. 
 These exploiters of the iron and steel industry and 
 of the National Policy of the Laurier Government, 
 when they floated the Nova Scotia, Quebec and 
 Ontario iron and steel companies, regarded the 
 bounties and tariff protection as personal to them- 
 selves, and capitalised them as assured income. 
 
 In addition to the tariff and bounty enactments, 
 there were of the National Policy code of the Liberal 
 Government from 1896 to 1907 the "made in Canada " 
 amendment to the Railway Subsidies Act of 1900, 
 the Dominion patent law of 1903, and the anti- 
 dumping enactments of 1904 and 1907. Every one 
 of these enactments embodies an extension of the 
 National Policy of the Conservatives as this policy 
 was developed from 1879 to 1896. So also did the 
 revision of the postal convention with the United 
 States in 1908. The convention was amended in 
 order that the rates might be increased on American
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 13 
 
 newspapers and magazines. Higher postal rates 
 on these pubHcations were urged by members of 
 the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at Wind- 
 sor, Quebec and Fredericton — in particular by the 
 manufacturers of hydraulic pumps and of shoes — 
 on the ground that American trade newspapers and 
 magazines carried the advertisements of American 
 manufacturers and diverted business from Canada to 
 the United States.* The increase in the postal rates 
 on these publications was as much a concession to the 
 protected interests — as much a part of the movement 
 to corral Canadian consumers for Canadian manufac- 
 turers and for the trusts and combines in the Dominion 
 — as the increase in the duties on British woollens in 
 1904, or the increase in the rates on tombstones from 
 Aberdeen and cast-iron water-pipe from Glasgow at 
 the revision of the preferential tariff in 1907. 
 
 Nor does the National Policy code of the Liberal 
 Government quite exhaust the advantages that have 
 accrued to the protected interests from governmental 
 action at Ottawa since the last Conservative Govern- 
 ment was defeated at the general election of 1896. 
 The administration of the customs department has 
 repeatedly been keyed up in the interest of protection 
 at the instigation of the Canadian Manufacturers' 
 Association, f whose claim is that "in all matters 
 pertaining to the administration of the customs tariff 
 the interests of the customs department and of the 
 Canadian Manufacturers' Association should be 
 identical, and that both should be anxious for the 
 proper appraisal of imported goods, and uniformity 
 in the tariff classification of these imports." I 
 
 * Cf. " The Reasons for Exclusion," Sun, Toronto, March 4, 
 1908 ; House of Commons Debates, Feb. 26 and May 22, 1908. 
 
 t Cf. Reports of the Standing Committees of the Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association, Montreal, 1908, p. 72 ; Industrial Canada, 
 October, 1909, p. 271 ; Reports of Standing Committees, Vancouver, 
 1910, pp. 41, 48. 
 
 + Industrial Canada, October, 1909, p. 271.
 
 14 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 These many and various extensions of the National 
 Policy since 1897 — bounty enactments, the "made 
 in Canada " clauses in railway Acts, the anti-dump- 
 ing enactments, the changes in the postal convention 
 with the United States, and the extra stringent ad- 
 ministration of the customs department in the interest 
 of protection — all these extensions of the original 
 National Policy of the Conservatives, as well as the 
 many curtailments of the British preference in 1904 
 and 1907 — were systematically ignored by the Liberal 
 leaders, by Liberal members of the House of Com- 
 mons, and by all the Government newspapers. 
 
 With but two or three exceptions the daily news- 
 papers that from 1879 to 1896 supported Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright and the Liberals 
 then in opposition in their long and unremitting 
 attack on the National Policy, became organs of the 
 Liberal Government after 1896. Every one of these 
 newspapers is an organ of the subservient type * — 
 
 * " It lies within the power of the government at Ottawa to do 
 more for its newspaper supporters than is possible for any other 
 government in the Anglo-Saxon world. The Dominion government 
 uses printing ink lavishly. It has an enormous amount of advertising 
 patronage in its bestowal — official notices, advertising for the Inter- 
 colonial Railway, the Department of Agriculture, and, above all, 
 for the Immigration Department ; and, moreover, the government 
 printing house at Ottawa can handle only part of the work required 
 for the government. Practically all this advertising and printing 
 goes to the newspapers whose proprietors support the Liberal party. 
 Nor is this all the government largesse that finds its way to those 
 newspaper proprietors ; for there is a remarkable connection in 
 Canada between the control of Liberal newspapers and directorships 
 in companies which derive enormous advantage from the iron and 
 steel bounties, from the protective duties in the interest of the Nova 
 Scotia coal mines, and from the high duties on iron and steel 
 and on other products of industrial plants. Cabinet positions and 
 senatorships have also a frequent connection with the control of 
 newspapers, and generally in Canada it is quite worth while for a 
 capitalist who is interested in industries on which the government 
 bestows largesse to include a daily newspaper or two among his 
 enterprises. It is not necessary that he should know anything about 
 newspaper production. It is not even necessary that the capitalist 
 should be over-careful that his newspaper venture quite pays for 
 itself over the counter. In meal or in malt, provided he stands 
 well with the government, he is almost certain to get an equivalent
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 15 
 
 of the type of newspaper that is one of the greatest 
 dangers that confronts democracy, and impedes the 
 spread of popular political education so essential in 
 a democracy. They are all organs because all of 
 them are tied to the fortunes of the Laurier Govern- 
 ment for advantages of one kind or another that 
 the Government has bestowed, not on their editors, 
 but on wealthy exploiters of Canadian industry or 
 politicians who own and control these subservient 
 newspapers. 
 
 One of these organs will occasionally show a little 
 independence by criticising the Government, But 
 never by any chance in the most independent of them 
 does there appear so much as a paragraph on the 
 editorial pages that might jeopardise a Liberal vote 
 at an election. Every one of these Government news- 
 papers — and there is at least one in every large city 
 from Halifax to Victoria* — had its part in the long- 
 maintained and adroitly managed campaign to delude 
 the people of Canada into the belief that the pro- 
 tective system developed by the Liberal Government 
 between 1897 ^^^ iQO? was less burdensome and 
 conceded fewer privileges to the protected interests 
 than the National Policy which was developed by the 
 Conservatives from 1879 to 1896. 
 
 The numerous protected interests, while they 
 realised that the campaign of deception was neces- 
 
 for any financial loss that his newspaper may entail upon him ; 
 and when it has served his ends and he is tired of it, some other 
 capitalist-politician is almost sure to be ready to take it off 
 his hands." — Edward Porritt, " The Value of Political Editorials," 
 Atlantic Monthly, January, 1910. 
 
 * " The ownership of newspapers in Canada has become a side 
 line with politicians and capitalists, and it is to suit the views of 
 these people that the wells of truth have become defiled. The 
 freedom of the press is a myth, and, with the exception of a few 
 bright examples, in Canada the freedom of the press is gone 
 completely. If the control of the Canadian newspapers could be 
 placed in the hands of the journalists, and published for the public 
 welfare, there would be a revolution in Canada inside of five 
 years, and special privilege would be wiped out." — Grain Growers' 
 Guide, Winnipeg, Oct. 12, 1910.
 
 i6 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 sary to the game of politics that the Liberals 
 were playing, were quite conscious that there 
 was no foundation for the claim that the National 
 Policy of 1897-1907 was less protective or less 
 comprehensive than the policy of Sir John A. 
 Macdonald and the Conservatives. Among them- 
 selves, and particularly in the conclaves of the Cana- 
 dian Manufacturers' Association, the protected in- 
 terests congratulated themselves that the Laurier 
 Government capitulated to them in 1897, ^^^ was 
 steadfast to its new allies at the revision of the tariff in 
 1907. To use the phraseology of American political 
 conventions, the Canadian Manufacturers' Associa- 
 tion, after the revision of 1907, "pointed with pride" 
 to their triumphs with the Liberal Government, and 
 rejoiced in the then obvious fact "that the Liberal 
 party who, when in opposition, declared that pro- 
 tection was ' unsound in principle and unjust to the 
 masses of the people,' are to-day the defenders of 
 a tariff based upon the very doctrine which formerly 
 and in sincerity they denounced."* 
 
 Conservative members of the House of Commons 
 since 1897, like the Canadian Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation, have been under no misapprehension as to 
 the protective policy and measures of the Laurier 
 Government. They were never deceived by the 
 reiterated assertions of Liberal speakers in Parlia- 
 ment and in the constituencies and of the Government 
 press that the tariffs of 1897 ^^^ ^9^7 were for 
 revenue with incidental protection. " The work of 
 Sir John A. Macdonald and his followers," said Mr. 
 R. L. Borden, in a speech in Ontario, in the summer 
 of 19 10, "has never received a greater tribute than in 
 the fact that the present Government has never dared 
 to lay unholy hands upon the National Policy." f 
 
 * Reports of the Standing Committees of the Canadian Manu- 
 facturers' Association, Montreal, 1908, p. 71. 
 t Cf. Tribune, Winnipeg, Sept. 15, 1910.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 THE CAMPAIGN OF DECEPTION 
 
 " We in Canada pretend that we are living under British institu- 
 tions. In reality we are not. We are living under the government 
 of an interested class, who find a party in power and keep it there 
 until it becomes too corrupt to be kept any longer; when it seizes 
 upon the other party and proceeds to corrupt it." — Dr. Andrew 
 Macphail, " Essays in Politics," 1909. 
 
 " The Liberal party assert as a cardinal principle that in the 
 levying of the public revenue by means of a customs tariff the 
 duties should be imposed simply with the view of collecting the 
 necessary revenue of the country so as to produce a maximum of 
 revenue with a minimum of taxation, and to bear as lightly as 
 possible upon the people." — Sir Wilfrid Laurier, June i, 1896. 
 
 Obviously there was no advantage for the Laurier 
 Government in proclaiming to the manufacturers that 
 the tariff of 1897 ^n<J 19^7 were for revenue with in- 
 cidental protection. The campaign of deception was 
 aimed at consumers and at Liberals who in 1896 were 
 in ignorance of the Bertram bargain, and honestly 
 believed that they were voting for men who meant 
 what they said when they framed the tariff reform 
 planks in the Ottawa platform, and spoke of pro- 
 tection as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Richard Cart- 
 wright had done from 1879 to 1896. Each member 
 of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association knew 
 what his protection in the tariff had cost him in 
 political wire-pulling and other ways. He was as 
 well informed of what the National Policy of the 
 Laurier Government did for him, of the measure of 
 the statutory power of exaction that his particular 
 schedule in the tariff guaranteed to him, as he was 
 of the condition of his account at his bankers' ; and 
 the quotation from the official records of the Cana- 
 dian Manufacturers' Convention of 1908 shows that 
 c 17
 
 i8 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 members of the Association had abundant reason 
 to "point with pride" to the fact that in 1897 and 
 every year thereafter Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard 
 Cartwright and the Liberal party turned their backs 
 on every fiscal principle they had professed with 
 unremitting vehemence during the seventeen or 
 eighteen years while the Liberals were in oppo- 
 sition. 
 
 In urban Canada there are as yet few proofs that 
 the campaign of deception persisted in by the Govern- 
 ment and the tied press from 1897 to 1907, and again 
 since the revision of 1907, has failed of success. But 
 there has been no real opportunity for testing the 
 opinion of the large cities with regard to the betrayal 
 of 1897. 
 
 Opportunity for a real test has been lacking since 
 1896 for two reasons. The first of these is that 
 electors were offered no alternative at the general 
 elections of 1900, 1904 and 1908. Alternative 
 policies were offered at the general elections of 1882, 
 1887, 1891 and 1896. Then it was possible for a 
 voter to make his choice between a Conservative can- 
 didate who was a supporter of the National Policy 
 of Sir John A. Macdonald, and a candidate of the 
 Liberal party, led successively by the late Mr. 
 Alexander Mackenzie, Mr. Edward Blake, and Sir 
 Wilfrid Laurier, which in those years was opposed to 
 the National Policy and pledged to a tariff for revenue 
 only. But at the general elections of 1900, 1904 and 
 1908, both Conservatives and Liberals were com- 
 mitted to the National Policy; and at these general 
 elections the return of the Conservatives to power, 
 judging by the utterances of leading members of the 
 Opposition in the House of Commons, might have 
 resulted in higher duties in some schedules, and also 
 in curtailments of the British preference. The atti- 
 tude of the Conservative leaders on the question of
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 19 
 
 the preference was sufficient in itself to prevent 
 Liberals, sore at the capitulation to the New 
 Feudalism by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Richard 
 Cartwright in 1897, froni giving a vote at these 
 general elections to candidates of the Conservative 
 party. 
 
 The attitude of the Conservatives on the question 
 of the British preference certainly prevented their 
 securing any recruits from among Liberals, who, 
 under other conditions, might have been eager to 
 break away from Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the watch- 
 dogs of the privileges of the New Feudalism by 
 whom he has been continuously surrounded in his 
 Cabinet ever since he formed his first administration 
 in June, 1896. No Liberal, however disgusted he 
 might have been with the Laurier Government and 
 with official Liberalism at Ottawa, would give a vote 
 at a Parliamentary election that would in any degree 
 endanger the preference. 
 
 The preference has now been part of the tariff 
 system of the Dominion for thirteen years. It was 
 at its best from July, 1900, to June, 1904. In those 
 four years the reduction in duties in favour of im- 
 ports from Great Britain was one-third, and the re- 
 duction applied uniformly to all schedules of the tariff 
 except the alcoholic liquor and tobacco schedules. 
 
 In these thirteen years — 1897-1910 — only the Con- 
 servative members in the House of Commons and the 
 protected manufacturers of woollens, cottons, ready- 
 made clothing, felt and straw hats, silk ties, paper, 
 pig iron, steel billets, structural steel, steel rails, 
 wire, tinplate, cast-iron water-pipe, wood screws, 
 tombstones, pickles, jams, jewellery, and plated ware, 
 scented soap, and the packers of tea, backed by the 
 Canadian Manufacturers' Association, have assailed 
 the preference. Except by these beneficiaries of the 
 New Feudalism and their guardians on the Govern-
 
 P^XT^^^^'BmEVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 ^^mlM;:^"! the Opposition benches; the preference is 
 everywhere regarded as a commendable feature of the 
 fiscal policy of the Eaurier Government. It has been 
 again and again endorsed by the farmers of Ontario, 
 Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta without regard 
 to party. Among Liberals of the Alexander Mackenzie 
 school in the constituencies, as the TarifT Commission 
 of 1905-6 and Sir Wilfrid Laurier's now historic 
 tour of 1910 both made unmistakably evident, the 
 preference is the only feature in the tariff policy 
 of the Laurier Government since 1897 that needs no 
 defence. 
 
 The preference brought a measure of relief to 
 Canadian consumers. This relief, however, has 
 accrued principally to the more well-to-do classes — 
 to those who can afford clothing made of British 
 woollens and cottons, and other articles of personal 
 and household equipment, such as hats, collars, and 
 ties, and linens, silks, lace, blankets, curtains, 
 carpets, clocks, pictures, cutlery, glass and china ware, 
 and household supplies in bottle, tin or jar, which 
 are imported from Great Britain. The preference, 
 commendable as it is as giving relief from the higher 
 duties of the Dominion tariff, is nevertheless class 
 legislation. It gives most relief to those who are 
 best able to carry the burden of the protective tariff. 
 But this favouring of a class is as old as the first 
 National Policy tariff of the Conservatives; for it was 
 the claim of the Conservatives in 1879 that they made 
 a preference for British imports. They discriminated 
 in favour of the United Kingdom and against the 
 United States. They were obliged, it was contended, 
 to charge the same duties on imports, whether these 
 came from Great Britain or America. But the 
 highest rate of duty was placed on articles mainly 
 imported from the United States and the lowest rate 
 on articles mainly imported from the United King-
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 21 
 
 dom ; and this had the effect of favouring British 
 exporters to Canada in competition with Americans.* 
 
 As a rehef from the burden of National PoHcy 
 tariffs, the British preference does and can do but 
 little for the wage-earners of Canada. It does Httle 
 for the men and women in the textile factories, for 
 the day labourers at the iron and steel plants, for the 
 less well-paid men who are engaged in rail and water 
 transport, for the men and women wage-earners in 
 the retail dry goods houses of the cities, for the 
 lumber jacks who go into the woods, for the men in 
 the saw mills, the fishermen of the Maritime Pro- 
 vinces, the miners of Cape Breton and on the main- 
 land of Nova Scotia, the hired men on the farms, or 
 the homesteaders of the prairie provinces. For all 
 these men and women, who, with the exception of 
 the homesteaders, are dependent on a weekly wage, 
 the British preference does little, because after rent 
 and living expenses have been paid, there is only a 
 small margin left for expenditure on such goods as 
 come in under the preference. 
 
 Since the sweeping inroad on the preference of 
 1904, made at the dictation of the woollen section of 
 the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the prefer- 
 ence can have been little more than a name to most 
 of these men and women. It is on these people and 
 on their children that the burden of the New 
 Feudalism in Canada rests with its heaviest load. 
 Their wages admit of the purchase of only Canadian 
 made goods; and for these they must pay prices 
 enormously enhanced by the statutory power of ex- 
 tortion bestowed on Canadian manufacturers by 
 Conservative and Liberal Governments since 1879. 
 As regards most of the goods they need, they must 
 pay the still further enhanced prices of trusts and 
 combines that could not survive for a week if the 
 
 * Cf. Earl of Dunraven, House of Lords, July 17, 1887.
 
 22 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 statutory power to extort were withdrawn by the 
 Dominion Parliament. 
 
 These conditions — the comparative smallness of 
 the class which can avail itself of the British prefer- 
 ence, as it has been narrowed down since 1904, as 
 well as the proximity of Canada to the United States 
 and the similarity in the needs of the people of the 
 two countries — are, it seems to me, often overlooked 
 in England by students of the statistics of trade be- 
 tween Great Britain and Canada and between the 
 United States and Canada. There can be little dis- 
 appointment to students who are familiar with trade, 
 social and climatic conditions in the three countries, 
 over the statistics of Canadian imports from Great 
 Britain and from the United States since the prefer- 
 ence was first enacted in 1897; for there is a large 
 range of goods manufactured in England so unsuit- 
 able for Canadian home, social, and economic con- 
 ditions that it would be vain to attempt to force them 
 on Canada, even at the point of the bayonet. They 
 cannot be made to meet Canadian needs and Cana- 
 dian conditions.* It is consequently useless to 
 attempt to make a market for them in the Dominion. 
 
 The operation of the preference has thus been re- 
 stricted for four obvious reasons. There was the cur- 
 tailment of 1904 in the schedules that gave Canadian 
 
 * " In the table showing the value of goods entered for con- 
 sumption last year, the United States comes to the front as the 
 country of origin, Great Britain taking a rather poor second place. 
 Here are the figures : — 
 
 United States $223,501,809 
 
 Great Britain 95.35o.300 
 
 A comparison of the above figures with those of the exports by 
 countries rather nullifies the claim sometimes put out that unless 
 one country buys from another it cannot expect to sell to it. The 
 fact is the people of a country buy foreign goods where it is 
 most convenient to get them, and leave the bankers to settle the 
 matter of adjusting the balances. This, rather than any individual 
 preference on the part of purchasers, accounts for the steady and 
 large increase in the amount of United States products brought 
 into Canada for use." — Gazette, Montreal, Oct. 22, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 23 
 
 consumers and British manufacturers their largest ad- 
 vantages. There were the many curtailments in 1907 
 in schedules which British manufacturers had shown 
 that they could turn to advantage, or had indicated 
 any intention to turn to advantage ; there is the fact 
 that only a very limited class of Canadian consumers 
 can avail themselves of the preference as it has stood 
 since 1907; and, finally, there is the proximity of 
 Canada to the United States and the similarity of 
 needs in the two countries which no preference, un- 
 accompanied by radical changes in British manu- 
 facturing economy and output, can prevent being of 
 advantage to American manufacturers.* 
 
 The idea of a preference for Great Britain did not 
 originate with the Liberal Government in the months 
 that preceded the introduction of the first Fielding 
 tariff in the House of Commons in April, 1897. I^ 
 had been proposed in Parliament in 1893, f and a 
 preference for Great Britain was objected to by the 
 Liberals when they were in opposition — particularly 
 by Mr. Paterson, Minister of Customs since 1897 — 
 as a discrimination against the United States. It was 
 adopted by the Laurier Government as part of the 
 game of politics at the time the official Liberals went 
 over to protection. It was intended partly as a con- 
 cession to the tariff-for-revenue only Liberals in and 
 out of Parliament— a concession to conciliate Liberals 
 
 * " British producers have it in their power to greatly change the 
 trade currents of this country to their own advantage by studying 
 Canadian needs. The American manufacturer is largely saved this 
 trouble because he makes the kind of goods for his home market 
 that Canadians are accustomed to, and he builds a factory in 
 Canada when his Canadian business warrants it. His British 
 competitor must also make the goods that Canadians want, even 
 if he has to change his ways, and he would do well to copy his 
 American competitor's readiness to make them in this countr}'." — 
 Advertiser, London, Ontario, Oct. 28, 1910. 
 
 t Cf. House of Commons Debates, March 16, 1893; Sir Charles 
 Tupper, " The Rise and Progress of Tariff Reform and Mutual 
 Preferential Trade in England and Canada," Britannia (Edinburgh), 
 September, 1909.
 
 24 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 who resented the betrayal — and partly to divert popu- 
 lar attention from the betrayal. The curtailments 
 of 1904 and 1907 are proofs that the Liberal Govern- 
 ment cares little for the preference as a principle, 
 or even as a measure of relief from the exaction 
 of Canadian manufacturers and of the trusts and 
 combines. When once the Laurier Government had 
 become the avowed guardian of the privileged in- 
 terests its members ceased to concern themselves over 
 the burdens of the tariff. 
 
 The many whittlings down of the preference since 
 1904 are proof that the Government would at any time 
 rather make an inroad upon the preference than run 
 any risk of antagonising its allies of the privileged 
 interests. With the exception of the knit goods in- 
 dustry, the pickle industry of Ontario, and the blend- 
 ing and tea-packing interests of St. John, no protected 
 interest which since 1900 has openly asked for a 
 curtailment of the British preference has had its plea 
 denied. The preference as part of the political game 
 served the Laurier Government admirably in 1897. 
 My own conviction is that, had there been no prefer- 
 ence then, had the Government taken over and re- 
 enacted the National Policy tariff of 1894 j"st as it 
 stood, with no concessions to Canadian consumers, 
 there might have been an independent movement at 
 Ottawa, soon extending to the constituencies, which 
 before the end of the Parliament of 1896-1900 would 
 have been a serious danger to the Laurier Govern- 
 ment at the first general election that followed the 
 betrayal. 
 
 The enactment of the preference, and the fact that 
 since 1897 it has been persistently assailed by the 
 Conservatives in the House of Commons, M-ho have 
 taken the ground that there should be no preference 
 for British imports until Great Britain concedes a 
 preference to the Dominion, help to account for the
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 25 
 
 reduction in the numerical strength of the Conserva- 
 tives in the House of Commons at the general elec- 
 tions of 1900 and 1904. The Opposition numbered 
 88 in a House of 210 members after the general 
 election of 1896 that made an end of the Tupper 
 Government. They were 80 in a House of 213 after 
 the election of 1900, and 75 in a House of 214 
 after that of 1904. 
 
 Finally, there was the general election of 1908. 
 Liberal members seeking re-election and new can- 
 didates of the Liberal party were then seriously 
 handicapped by two sets of adverse conditions. There 
 was no popular enthusiasm for the type of Liberalism 
 that has been in service at Ottawa since 1897. It has 
 no kinship, near or remote, with the Liberalism of the 
 days of opposition, and only the name survives to 
 associate this official Liberalism with the history and 
 traditions of the Liberal party that met in national 
 convention in 1893. The Ottawa convention was the 
 last convention held. Popular political education, 
 such as the Liberal leaders were continuously en- 
 gaged in from 1879 to 1896, was impossible after the 
 complete abandonment in 1897 of Liberal principles 
 as regards the tariff, bounties, provincial rights, 
 public lands, railway subsidies, the constitution of 
 the Senate, freedom of members of Parliament, and a 
 free press. 
 
 Office holders and office seekers, Government con- 
 tractors, and merchants and tradesmen on the Ottawa 
 patronage list, lawyers eager for Government re- 
 tainers, members of the Provincial legislatures and 
 candidates for these legislatures, kept the local 
 organisations of the Liberal party together after 1897. 
 These were the men active in nominating conventions. 
 These were the platform sitters at Liberal meetings. 
 But, except for the campaign of deception on the 
 tariff, popular political education by the Liberal party
 
 26 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 came to an end in 1897. With no principles to advo- 
 cate there could be no appeal except to men who were 
 deriving advantage from existing political conditions. 
 From 1897 torpor and deadness characterised 
 Liberalism all over Canada; and by 1908 there had 
 come on to the electoral rolls a generation of young 
 men who did not even know that principles and con- 
 victions had ever counted for anything in the political 
 life of the Dominion. Such of the new voters as were 
 within reach of daily newspapers which attacked the 
 Government, could have no other conception of 
 politics than as a game of graft. To those who read 
 only the Government newspapers, Canada's destinies 
 must have appeared to be in the hands of three or 
 four men of Heaven-bestowed genius for statesman- 
 ship, for no praise is too banal or too stupidly ful- 
 some for most of the organs of the Laurier 
 Government. 
 
 Democracy in no English-speaking country ever 
 experienced a more disastrous set-back than that 
 which befel democracy in Canada when official 
 Liberalism went over to the New Feudalism. For the 
 official leaders of the Liberal party and nine out of 
 ten of the Liberal daily newspapers in the larger 
 cities democratic political principles were submerged 
 after 1897. Popular education in the aims and prin- 
 ciples of Liberalism came to a standstill. The only 
 political activity within the Liberal party was that of 
 men seeking election to the House of Commons, or 
 of men on the hunt for offices, contracts, subsidies, 
 land grants, bounties, and tariff concessions. Political 
 thought was almost stagnant, except in the granges 
 and grain growers' associations, and it might have 
 stagnated completely for any effort that was made by 
 the Liberal leaders to educate the people in the con- 
 stituencies in Liberal principles. Only the sordid 
 aspects of Dominion politics — corruption at the polls
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 27 
 
 and the graft and personal scandals of political life 
 that is divorced from political principles — riveted 
 popular attention. 
 
 One fact in all this stands out with sombre sig- 
 nificance. A generation of men and women, born 
 in Canada, educated in Canadian schools, by Cana- 
 dian newspapers, and by the social interchange of the 
 home, the street, the market-place and the workshop, 
 has come into the activities of Canadian life since 
 1897; so have three-quarters of a million of immi- 
 grants drawn to Canada by her free lands and her 
 open opportunities. These Canadian men and 
 women, and these immigrants from the old world and 
 from the new, can have no conception that politics — 
 at bottom nothing more nor less than the affairs of 
 the larger home — have any other meaning, aim, or 
 end than personal advantage or graft. These aims 
 have been the only ones in sight since there ceased 
 to be a clear and abiding line between Conservative 
 and Liberal at Ottawa. The only dividing line that 
 the most discerning of the younger generation of 
 Canadian electors can trace at Ottawa now is that the 
 Conservatives are the traditional friends of the Cana- 
 dian Pacific Railway Company, while the Liberals 
 are the friends and generous patrons — with Govern- 
 ment money and Government lands — of the Grand 
 Trunk and the Canadian Northern. All that is to be 
 learned from the political annals of the last thirty 
 years, as Dr. Andrew Macphail has recently pointed 
 out, is that the New Feudalism uses one of the 
 political parties until it becomes too corrupt to be 
 kept any longer in power, and then seizes on the 
 other party "and proceeds to corrupt it." * 
 
 Lack of political interest and enthusiasm among 
 the rank and file of the Liberal party in the con- 
 stituencies all over Canada, due to these conditions, 
 
 * Cf. Macphail, " Essays in Politics (1909)," p. 92.
 
 28 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 told against Liberal candidates at the general election 
 of 1908. So did the fact that Liberals had then to 
 apologise for, or attempt to explain away, many 
 scandals which had been uncovered at Ottawa be- 
 tween 1904 and 1908. There were scandals in the 
 Department of Marine and Fisheries arising out of 
 contracts and the patronage list prices ; in the De- 
 partment of the Interior, arising out of the North 
 Atlantic Trading Company and land deals; and in 
 the Railway Department, arising out of the purchase 
 of land for the Intercolonial, the Government Rail- 
 way, that were as squalid as any unearthed at 
 Ottawa since the Canadian Pacific scandal of 1872 — 
 the Allan-Macdonald scandal that brought about the 
 downfall of the Conservative Government in 1874, 
 and the incoming of the Liberal administration of 
 1874-78 under the premiership of Mr. Alexander 
 Mackenzie. Yet, with these conditions so obviously 
 adverse for the Liberals, and with no enthusiasm for 
 the Laurier Government, the Conservative party at 
 the general election of 1908 failed to secure the return 
 of even as many members as they had had in the 
 Parliament of 1896-1900. In the existing Parliament, 
 the eleventh since Confederation, there are only 85 
 members of the Opposition in a House of 221 
 members. 
 
 In the absence of an independent movement aimed 
 against the old protectionist policy of the Conserva- 
 tives, and also against the adopted protectionist policy 
 of the Liberals, the electorate — urban and rural — has 
 not since 1896 had an opportunity of registering its 
 opinion. Liberals certainly have had no chance of 
 marking their approval or disapproval of the official 
 carrying over of the Liberal party to the National 
 Policy. 
 
 These political conditions, unparalleled so far as I 
 can trace in the party history of any English-speaking
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 29 
 
 country, explain the absence of any trustworthy data 
 as to the feeHngs of electors in the large cities that 
 return Liberal members with regard to the tariff 
 policy of the Laurier Government. Consumers in 
 urban Canada, moreover, unlike the farmers and the 
 grain growers in the region between the Ottawa River 
 and the Rocky Mountains, are not organised. They 
 are so unorganised that, except for the protest of the 
 Trades Council at Toronto against any increases in 
 the protective duties — a protest submitted to the Tariff 
 Commission of 1905-6, and later on reiterated by the 
 Dominion Trades and Labour Congress — urban 
 Canada has been inarticulate since the protectionists 
 captured the Liberal Government and the Liberal 
 press thirteen years ago. 
 
 For these two reasons — electoral and party con- 
 ditions which offered no alternative as a test, and the 
 fact that consumers in the cities are unorganised and 
 inarticulate — it is impossible to ascertain how far the 
 campaign of deception, how far the long persisted in 
 movement to delude Canadians into the belief that 
 they are under a different and less burdensome fiscal 
 system than that of the Conservatives, has been suc- 
 cessful in the cities. It is, however, obvious that 
 from the first this propaganda has been a complete 
 failure in rural Canada. From the standpoint of the 
 privileged interests, and also from that of the Laurier 
 Government, in rural Canada the campaign to deceive 
 has not proved worth the printing ink that has been 
 lavished upon it by the Government newspapers of 
 St. John, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Hamilton, 
 Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. 
 Rural Canada, and particularly the West, realises 
 acutely the power of the New Feudalism ; understands 
 how the power was secured and how maintained ; and 
 rural Canada also knows on whom the manifold 
 burdens of the New Feudalism finally rest.
 
 so THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 In the Maritime Provinces, in Quebec, and in 
 British Columbia, farmers are not organised. There 
 were consequently no protests from farmers' associa- 
 tions to the Tariff Commission of 1905-6 in these five 
 provinces, although at Montreal, Quebec and Char- 
 lottetown, individual farmers appeared before the 
 Commission, and objected to the demands of the 
 Canadian Manufacturers' Association for Dingley 
 rates in the tariff. Farmers and grain growers in 
 Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are, 
 however, well organised in granges, associations 
 and unions — all federated in 1910 in the Canadian 
 Council of Agriculture, which has its headquarters 
 in Toronto. These organisations in 1905 sent their 
 representatives to the Tariff Commission, and they 
 were sufficiently powerful with the Laurier Govern- 
 ment to prevent it from implementing Mr. Fielding's 
 pledge of June 7, 1904, to enact a minimum and a 
 maximum tariff, with the maximum tariff applicable 
 to countries "which pursue," to quote the words of 
 the Minister of Finance, "if I may say so, a hostile 
 policy." "I do not mean to say," continued Mr. 
 Fielding, in this speech in which he announced that 
 the Government had given way to the demands of the 
 Canadian Manufacturers' Association for another 
 revision of the tariff, "that these countries have any 
 hostility to us, but that simply in the carrying out of 
 their own affairs they adopt a trade policy which dis- 
 courages trade with us."* 
 
 From 1902 to 1904 the Canadian Manufacturers' 
 Association had been agitating for a Canadian tariff 
 with protective duties on the Dingley level, in re- 
 taliation for the Dingley tariff that was enacted at 
 Washington on July 24, 1897. Members of the Asso- 
 ciation understood Mr. Fielding's maximum and 
 
 * Cf. House of Commons Debates, June 7, 1904.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 31 
 
 minimum proposals to mean retaliation against the 
 United States, and that there were to be Dingley rates 
 in the new Dominion tariff. They urged these high 
 rates at many of the sessions of the Tariff Commission 
 of 1905-6. But farmers and grain growers of 
 Ontario and the prairie provinces protested strongly 
 against any such concession to the protected interests ; 
 and we have it on the authority of vSir Richard 
 Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce, that 
 the well-organised opposition of the farmers made 
 an end to the idea of a minimum and maximum 
 tariff such as was urged by the Canadian Manu- 
 facturers' Association, and promised by Mr. Field- 
 ing in 1904.* 
 
 Following this success of the farmers' organisa- 
 tions in 1905-6 the granges of Ontario impelled the 
 Government in 1910 to substitute for the only once 
 applied law of 1897 against trusts and combines an 
 Act "to provide for the investigation of combines, 
 monopolies, trusts and mergers which may enhance 
 prices or restrict competition to the detriment of con- 
 sumers." There have been laws in Canada to check 
 trusts since 1889. f How adequately they have safe- 
 guarded consumers from extortion will be realised 
 when it is stated that the net result of these laws — 
 one enacted by the Conservatives and the other by 
 the Liberals — was the reduction in 1901 of the duty 
 
 * Cf. Sir Richard Cartwright's speech to deputation from 
 Dominion Grange, Ottawa, Feb. 26 ; Sun, Toronto, April 3, 1909. 
 " The scheme which Mr. Fielding had so carefully elaborated in 
 June, 1904, the scheme which raised such exhilarating expectations 
 among the protected manufacturers and the ultra-protectionist poli- 
 ticians at Ottawa, was quietly abandoned by the Government at 
 some time between the session of the Tariff Commission at Toronto, 
 on Nov. 14, 1905, and the introduction of the new tariff on Nov. 29, 
 1906. It was killed by the steadfast and well-organised opposition 
 of the Dominion Grange, the Ontario Farmers' Association, and 
 the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association." — " Sixty Years of 
 Protection in Canada," pp. 431, 432. 
 
 + 52 Vic, c. 41.
 
 32 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 on news printing paper from twenty-five to fifteen per 
 cent, ad valorem.* 
 
 Twenty years' experience with these enactments to 
 prevent extortion under protective duties warrants no 
 expectation that the law of 1910 will be one whit more 
 serviceable than those of 1889 and 1897. But useless 
 as such legislation is at a time when Canadian in- 
 dustrial companies — most of them protected by the 
 tariff — are being merged at the rate of six a month,! 
 it is none the less noteworthy at this crisis in the 
 tariff history of Canada— with the West in revolt 
 against the duties of the Act of 1907 — that the law 
 of 1 910 was enacted at the instance of the farmers 
 who are organised in the granges of Ontario. Also 
 significant is the fact that chiefly as a result of the 
 agitation of the organised farmers of Ontario and the 
 prairie provinces, the Laurier Government in 1910 
 determined that there should be no renewal of the 
 enactments bestowing bounties on the iron and steel 
 companies of Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario. 
 
 Oppressed by the burden of the tariff, goaded by 
 the notorious fact that farmers' equipment made in 
 Ontario is sold in England and Scotland at prices 
 from ten to thirty per cent, less than in Canada. J 
 long convinced that no grain growers in the prairie 
 provinces and few farmers anywhere in Canada de- 
 rive advantage from the National Policy, encouraged 
 also by their successes at Ottawa since 1907, the 
 granges of Ontario and the grain-growers' associa- 
 tions of IManitoba and Saskatchewan and the farmers' 
 unions of Alberta are now in revolt against the New 
 
 * Details of the long-drawn-out procedure necessary under the 
 Act of 1897 to effect this relief for Canadian newspaper publishers 
 are given in " Sell's Dictionary of the World's Press," 1902, 
 120-121. 
 
 t Witness, Montreal, reported Oct. 4, 19 10, 135 companies ab- 
 sorbed in mergers since Jan. 9, 1909. 
 
 t Cf. " Canadian Grain Growers and the Tariff on Machinery," 
 Commercial Intelligence, London, Feb. 28, 19 10.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 33 
 
 Feudalism. A new era in the political history of 
 Canada opened with Sir Wilfrid Laurier's tour of the 
 West in the summer of 19 10, when the strength and 
 the widespread character of this revolt was made 
 obvious to the Government and to the people of the 
 Dominion. 
 
 THE CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION 
 AND THE BRITISH PREFERENCE. 
 
 As an Association of Canadian manufacturers it is cur 
 proud boast that we stand first, last, and all the time for the 
 inviolability of the British preference. We maintain, of 
 course, that under all circumstances the minimum tariff 
 should be so framed as to afford adequate protection to 
 legitimate native industry in order that we may the more 
 effectually transfer to Canadian workshops much of the 
 manufactures that we now procure abroad. We recognise, 
 however, that for some of our requirements we must always 
 be dependent on outside sources of supply, and it is with a 
 view to directing this business as largely as may be into 
 Imperial channels that we declare ourselves in favour of 
 a substantial preference to the Mother Country and to our 
 sister colonies. It is a pleasure to observe that during the 
 past year considerable progress has been made by other 
 portions of the Empire towards placing a preference upon 
 a mutual basis. The recent elections in Great Britain in- 
 dicate very clearly that tariff reform is making great headway 
 in the Mother Country. — Presidential Address by MR. JOHN 
 Hendry, Annual Convention CM. A., Vancouver, Sept. 20, 
 1910. 
 
 The adoption of regulations defining the amount of British 
 labour necessary to entitle an article to admission under the 
 Preferential Tariff will put a stop to much of the unfair 
 competition to which Canadian manufacturers in past years 
 have been subjected. — Refort of MR. GILBERT M. Murray, 
 M.A., Secretary CM. A., Atinual Convention, Vancouver, 
 Sept. 20, 1910. 
 
 The question as to the percentage of labour required to 
 entitle goods to entry under the British Preferential Tariff 
 has been before your Committee for some time. The Honour- 
 able Mr. Fielding, in his Budget speech of the 29th November, 
 
 D
 
 34 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 1906, stated "in order that any foreign article may receive 
 the British stamp, may qualify itself to be admitted under 
 the British Preferential Tariff, it must have upon it 25 per 
 cent, of bond fide British labour without computing the profits 
 as a portion of that labour." The issuing of a regulation in 
 accordance with the policy announced was held in abeyance 
 pending the new French Treaty going into operation. 
 
 Your Committee are pleased to report that on the 17th 
 December, 1909, the following regulations were made and 
 established by Order-in-Council : 
 
 " From and after the first day of February, 1910, the 
 country of origin in respect of each imported article shall be 
 specified on the margin opposite to such article, or elsewhere 
 on the invoice thereof, when the articles are for entry in 
 Canada under the British Preferential Tariff. 
 
 "A certificate of origin, as hereinafter set forth, is pre- 
 scribed to be written, printed, or stamped on the face or back 
 of all invoices of articles for entry as aforesaid (except raw 
 and refined sugars). 
 
 "Such certificate shall be made and signed by the exporter 
 personally, or on his behalf by his manager, chief clerk, or 
 other principal official having knowledge of the facts to be 
 certified to and shall contain the following statement of 
 facts, viz. : 
 
 " That each article on this invoice is bona -fide the produce 
 or manufacture of a country entitled in Canada to the benefits 
 of the British Preferential Tariff and specified on the invoice 
 as its country of origin, and that each manufactured article 
 on the invoice in its present form, ready for export to Canada, 
 has been finished by a substantial amount of labour in such 
 country and not less than one-fourth the cost of production 
 of each such article has been produced through the industry 
 of one or more British countries." 
 
 No manufactured article is now entitled to entry at the 
 British preferential rate unless finished in a country entitled 
 to the benefits of the British Preferential Tariff and not less 
 than one-fourth the cost of its manufacture has been produced 
 through the industry of one or more British countries. Pro- 
 fits are not considered as part of the cost. — Refort of Tariff 
 Committee, CM. A., Annual Conve)ition, Vancouver, Sept, 20, 
 1910. 
 
 Perhaps it is within the knowledge of many of you that 
 sometimes previously the profits were allowed to be con- 
 sidered part of the 25 per cent., the result of which was, the 
 %
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 35 
 
 preference to Great Britain was very badly abused, and we 
 manufacturers had many causes for complaint, but now that 
 has been rectified. I am sure you will all be very pleased. — 
 Mr. p. W. Ellis, Annual Convention, CM. A., Vancouver, 
 Se-pt. 21, 19 10. 
 
 Let us protect ourselves in our own way, on a broad, 
 solid, sure and safe basis of practical protection. Let us 
 stick to the British preference and to Imperial Union ; let 
 us all work together to secure practical protection throughout 
 the Empire, based on a substantial unity of tariff with a 
 circumstantial variety of rates to be imposed. — MR. W. H. 
 Rowley, President (igio-ii) C-M.A., at Convention Banquet, 
 Vancouver, Se-pt. 22, 1910. 
 
 Sir Robert Perks, Bart., returned to Liverpool on Saturday 
 from Canada. In an interview with our Liverpool corre- 
 spondent Sir Robert said there seemed to him to be no dis- 
 position whatever in the direction of Free Trade except 
 amongst a small section in the Far West. There was un- 
 questionably a disposition to lower the tariff in favour of 
 Great Britain, although he was bound to say that this policy 
 seemed only to apply to manufactured goods which do not 
 come into competition with the Canadian manufacturers. — 
 Yorkshire Post, Oct. 10, 19 10.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 MERGERS AND WATER-WAGON FINANCE 
 
 " I venture to say that these monopolies that the Government is 
 now aiding to build up will not be easily removed. It will perhaps 
 take more than the verdict of the people of this country to loosen 
 the grip which will fasten on them with a death-like tenacity." — 
 Mr. John Charlton, Liberal, in the House of Commons, March 
 i8, 1879. 
 
 " There is not a manufacturing industry in this country in which 
 there is not an understanding between the men engaged in it by 
 which they regulate the output and fix the prices, and there is 
 virtually no competition. What is the result? The result is that 
 you are paying an enormous tax on what you bring into the 
 country, that goes into the Treasury. The duty that your merchant 
 pays to the customs house ofTicers goes into the Treasury. He 
 adds it to the price of his goods, his profit to that, and it comes 
 out of the pockets of the people. But if you deal with the home 
 manufacturer you pay him the same price as if he had paid duty, 
 when he has not paid anything, and the 35 per cent, goes into 
 his pockets and not into the Treasury at all." — Mr. Dalton 
 McCarthy, Conservative, in the House of Commons, April 11, 
 1894. 
 
 " By directing into Imperial channels the investments of our 
 people we shall build together east and west and north and south 
 in the world-wide British realm." — Manifesto of the Committee of 
 the Unionist R6veill6, Oct. 18, 19 10. 
 
 Trusts and combinations are nearly as old as the 
 National Policy. They can be traced at least as far 
 back as 1886, and no legislation designed ostensibly 
 to take the sting out of protection has ever succeeded 
 in affording relief from their exactions. The laws of 
 1889 and 1897 did not prevent a single protected 
 manufacturer from exacting the last cent practicable, 
 and in only one case has the protection of manufac- 
 tures been reduced because the tariff was being used 
 to extort. Prior to the revision of 1907 it was chiefly 
 by means of secret agreements between manufacturers 
 that prices were .so regulated as to end competition. 
 After the revision of 1907 the merger process, of 
 
 36
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 37 
 
 which the United States Steel Corporation is known 
 the world over as the best example, was introduced 
 into Canada. 
 
 Under the older form of combination in service 
 in the Dominion, price regulation went on behind 
 closed doors. The strings were pulled from an office 
 in Montreal or Toronto — chiefly from Toronto — and 
 one shrewd and conscienceless exploiter fixed prices 
 in many lines of trade. He levied a heavy toll on 
 each industry — a toll invariably paid by the consumer 
 —for the use of the hidden organisation that he had 
 built up to enable manufacturers systematically to 
 draw to themselves the last cent that their particular 
 schedules in the tariff afforded them. 
 
 The merger in its origin, organisation, and work- 
 ing differs in several particulars from the combine, as 
 was manifest when the methods of forty odd combines 
 were uncovered in detail in the criminal courts at 
 Toronto in the winter of 1905-6. For a merger there 
 must be a promoter, and at one stage of the process 
 there is need of much advertising. The promoter is 
 usually a professional at the business — a man who pro- 
 ceeds from one merger to another. The promoter will 
 tackle any business, from breweries to bakeries, from 
 underwear to cement, that seems to suggest the 
 possibility of merger. It is his object to bring 
 hitherto separately owned and separately managed 
 undertakings in a similar line of industry into con- 
 solidation. The owners of each concern take liberal 
 payment for their property in bonds, with preferred 
 and common stock often lavishly thrown in as 
 bonuses. 
 
 The promoter then floats the merger as a new 
 company. If it is a more than ordinarily ambitious 
 undertaking, again following the usage of the country 
 that has pushed the merger to its farthest develop- 
 ment, it is dignified by the title of corporation.
 
 38 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Whether a company or a corporation, it is usually 
 capitalised enormously in excess of the aggregate 
 sum paid in bonds and stock for the hitherto separate 
 undertakings. Tariff and bounties as well as the local 
 protection that every industry enjoys apart from the 
 tariff, and also municipal and county tax exemptions 
 if there are any, are all capitalised as assured earnings 
 or as factors that can be made to swell profits. 
 
 It follows, consequently, that if these water-logged 
 concerns are to have any chance of making port 
 there must be the same use of the tariff for the ex- 
 ploitation of the consumer as there has been since 
 1886 under the combine method. But in addition the 
 investor is often exploited, and this additional and 
 newer form of exploitation has a political significance 
 that did not attach in anything like the same degree 
 to the combine method. Under the older plan — the 
 plan first devised to ensure that the consumer should 
 not escape tariff exaction — the owners of an industrial 
 undertaking which was of a combine, continued com- 
 paratively few in number. Under the merger plan 
 stockholders are necessarily numerous, and when 
 the tariff is assailed these are disposed to range them- 
 selves with the New Feudalism, because any reduc- 
 tion in duties must impair the stock market value of 
 their holdings in the mergers which were capitalised 
 on a tariff basis. 
 
 The merger, as distinct from the combine and the 
 gentlemen's agreement, was almost unknown in 
 Canada before 1907. It is a new development in 
 tariff, industrial, and financial economy, which began 
 just as soon as promoters realised that at the revision 
 of 1907 more protection was given to many industries, 
 and that for a few years to come, at any rate, the 
 privileged interests of the New Feudalism were in 
 little danger at Ottawa. 
 
 The Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company,
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 39 
 
 Limited, with an authorised capital of $7,600,000, 
 was announced the day after Mr. Fielding had sub- 
 mitted the revised tariff to the House of Commons on 
 Nov. II, 1906. The protective duties for this industry 
 are : Rubber boots, 25 per cent. ; rubber clothing, 
 hose, mats and packing, 35 per cent. ; unenumerated 
 articles of rubber, 275-2 per cent. Eighteen months 
 later — June 24, 1908 — it was announced from Mon- 
 treal, where most Canadian mergers are organised by 
 the men whom some Canadian newspapers laud as 
 Napoleons of finance — usually water-wagon finance — 
 that the United States Rubber Company, "which has 
 practically a monopoly of the rubber manufacturing 
 of the United States, had secured a controlling 
 interest in the Canadian Rubber Company, which 
 will give the amalgamation a practical monopoly of 
 the rubber manufacturing trade of Canada." * 
 
 "This," said the Globe, in its editorial columns, 
 "will give a single corporation complete control of 
 the business in both countries. No doubt, after the 
 rubber business has been merged into a single cor- 
 poration, the American wing will still demand pro- 
 tection against the products of the pauper labour of 
 Canada, while the Canadian wing will demand that 
 its infant industry be protected from the immense 
 capital and superior machinery of its gigantic 
 American rival. The annexation policy of both will 
 scarcely deter them from appealing to the national 
 antipathies of their fellow-citizens when asking that 
 the products of the hated foreigner be excluded." f 
 
 Penmans, Limited, was organised in 1907, with 
 an authorised capital of $6,000,000 — preferred stock, 
 $1,500,000; common stock, $2,500,000, and bonds, 
 $2,000,000. I The capital issued when the shares 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, June 25, 1908. 
 
 t Ibid., July 27, 1908. 
 
 t Cf. "Canadian Annual Financial Review," 1908, p. 190.
 
 40 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 were listed on the stock exchanges of Montreal and 
 Toronto was: common $2,140,000, and preferred 
 $1,075,000; and there had previously been a 5 per 
 cent, bond issue of $2,000,000. "The preferred," 
 wrote the financial correspondent of the Globe, "pays 
 6 per cent. It is understood that i per cent, will be 
 declared on the common. The common was issued at 
 50, and the preferred at 90." * Penmans are manu- 
 facturers of knitted goods, with mills at Paris, 
 Thorold, Port Dover, Almonte and Brantford, 
 Ontario, and at Coaticook and Ste. Hyacinthe, 
 Quebec. Duties on the output of the mills included 
 in the merger are 35 per cent, and 22^^ per cent, 
 under the British preference. 
 
 The mills now of Penmans, Limited, were in the 
 hands of individual owners in 1905-6, when the Tariff 
 Commission was on its rounds. At Toronto and at 
 Ste. Hyacinthe increased duties against British im- 
 ports were urged. But in 1904 the Laurier Govern- 
 ment had made the first serious inroad on the prefer- 
 ence in the interest of the woollen industry of Ontario, 
 Quebec and Nova Scotia ; and the only curtailments in 
 the woollen schedule at the revision of 1907 were in 
 respect to cheap blankets and felt. 
 
 A significant incident in the history of mergers 
 and combines in 1907 was the suspension by the 
 Ontario Government of the embargo on the export 
 of tan bark, at the instance of the lumbermen and 
 settlers in the Parry Sound country. It was first 
 imposed as one of a series of retaliatory measures 
 against the high duties in the lumber schedule of 
 the Dingley Act of 1897. "The lumbermen and 
 settlers," wrote a correspondent of the Globe, in 
 reporting the interview with the Minister of Crown 
 Lands of Ontario, "argued that the tanners were 
 enabled, by reason of the embargo, to maintain a 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, June i, 1907.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 41 
 
 monopoly as to prices,* with the result that bark 
 was only realising $5 a cord in Ontario, as compared 
 with $15 a cord in the United States. Buyers from 
 the latter country should, they said, be allowed to 
 come in, and purchase from the lumbermen and 
 settlers. This would result in a competition of prices 
 which would break the alleged monopoly." f 
 
 About the same time — April 19, 1907 — a Select 
 Committee of the House of Commons at Ottawa re- 
 ported that a combine existed in the lumber trade in 
 the prairie provinces. "Your Committee are of 
 opinion," read the report, "that prices charged for 
 lumber in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and 
 Saskatchewan are excessive. Your Committee find 
 that there has existed for some years past, and still 
 exists, an association known as the Western Retail 
 Lumbermen's Association. This association included 
 all the three provinces until recently, when the dealers 
 of Alberta formed a similar association of their own, 
 called the Alberta Retail Lumbermen's Association. 
 These two associations amount, in the opinion of your 
 Committee, to a combination ; and the objects and 
 results of the operations of these two associations 
 have been to unduly enhance prices, as appears from 
 the price lists and bye-laws, minute-books and cor- 
 respondence, and evidence of witnesses in regard to 
 said operations." + 
 
 The financial panic in New York came in October, 
 
 * " The tanner gets practically all his raw material free of duty. 
 For every $ioo worth of manufactured goods the leather manu- 
 facturer pays: for material, $62.57; wages, $21.40; miscellaneous 
 expenses, such as cost of fuel, heat, interest, municipal and pro- 
 vincial taxes, rent of office, power and work, I2.54 ; leaving 
 I13.49 of profits or surplus. The customs duty enables him to 
 add $17.50 to this $100, charging the manufacturer of boots and 
 shoes and harness $117.50 for what actually costs him in raw 
 material, labour and miscellaneous expenses $86.51. Be it noticed 
 that he practically pays no duty on his raw material." — " Something 
 About Leather," Grain Growers'' Guide, Winnipeg, Nov. 2, 1910. 
 
 t Globe, Toronto, March i, 1907. 
 
 + Ibid., April 20, 1907.
 
 42 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 1907. Thereafter, until well on in 1908, business in 
 Canada was depressed, and there was for a time 
 stagnation among the promoters and water-wagon 
 financiers of Montreal and Toronto. Just as soon, 
 however, as recovery was in sight, the hunt for in- 
 dustrial undertakings suitable for the merger process 
 was resumed. Two large consolidations were floated 
 as new companies in the autumn of 1908. Hence- 
 forward Canadian newspapers, and some English 
 newspapers as well, teemed with advertisements for 
 subscriptions to the issues of bonds and stocks of 
 industrial mergers, and the portraits of the Napoleons 
 of finance stared out from the news pages of the daily 
 journals. Mergers followed each other in such quick 
 succession that between Jan. i, 1909, and Oct. 4, 
 1910, 135 companies had been absorbed, and the 
 investing public in Canada and England had been 
 appealed to for about $200,000,000.* 
 
 About this time — even a little earlier — protests 
 and warnings began to be made in the press, notably 
 in the Telegram of Toronto, f and the Witness of 
 Montreal. An attempt to merge all the flour mills 
 in the Dominion failed in August, 1910; and in com- 
 menting on this failure the Witness remarked that 
 "in one sense, perhaps, such a merger w'ould have 
 done no harm, for its inevitable effect in the long run 
 would have been to lift the duty off flour — 60 cents 
 a barrel — and place it on the free list." "Why," 
 asked the Witness, "would this have been inevit- 
 able? Because those who were exploiting the 
 merger would have insisted upon putting into it 
 millions of dollars of water; and the continued 
 success of the merger would have depended not 
 only on the tariff, but on the power of the merger 
 
 * Cf. " Recent Mergers Injurious to Canada's Name," Witness, 
 Montreal, Oct. 4, 1910. 
 
 t " The Merger Era," Telegram, Toronto, Aug. 19, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 43 
 
 to form a monopoly in wheat by means of 
 manipulating freights, rigging the market, and what 
 not." 
 
 "Some of the recent manipulators," continued the 
 Witness, in a survey of the exploits of the water- 
 wagon financiers since the beginning of 1909, "have 
 made millions out of nothing but ' gall,' and names 
 of bankers, directors and managers appear on the 
 directorates of concerns which are notoriously water- 
 logged.* The song ' Canada for Canadians,' on the 
 part of certain interests, has been used simply to gull 
 the public while it has been having its pocket picked 
 by the chief soloists. This matter is early to be 
 brought up in Parliament by a member who has 
 chapter and verse, names and dates of high financing 
 and financiers which will astonish the people, and lead 
 either to a tariff for revenue only before long or to 
 prosecutions, or perhaps to both. The cry ' Canada 
 for Canadians ' means really ' Canada for privi- 
 leged Canadians,' including 'financial bounders'; 
 and the anxiety expressed to keep the traffic going 
 west to east and vice versa, and not let it escape north 
 and south, is largely on behalf of these same interests, 
 whose only care is further to enrich themselves, and 
 some of whom are impudent enough to express 
 openly William R. Vanderbilt's and Lord Milner's 
 guide to life : ' The public be damned.' "f 
 
 Even the Canadian Manufacturers' Association by 
 September, 19 10, was uneasy over the many mergers 
 of 1908, 1909, and 1910. Its concern was not as to 
 
 * " I believe there is a strong and growing feeling in favour 
 of free trade within the Empire, or in favour of tariff for revenue 
 only. This feeling is brought about on account of the system 
 prevailing of giving bonuses in shares to the parties who take up 
 the bonds and preferred shares of joint stock companies. I am 
 decidedly of opinion that the Canadian people will not stand for 
 any length of time for a policy which gives protection to capital 
 which is largely ' water,' and which ' water ' is distributed as 
 bonuses." — Mr. Robert Meighen, in Globe, Toronto, Oct. 27, 1910. 
 
 t Wifness, Montreal, Aug. 10, 1910.
 
 44 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 the exploitation of investors — Canadian and British — 
 nor as to the seven millions of consumers in the 
 Dominion so penned in by the tariff that they could 
 not escape exploitation by these combines. The 
 Association was uneasy only as to the effect of the 
 mergers on its numerical strength and its financial 
 resources. It was "the most serious problem" that 
 the committee on membership had had to face between 
 the Hamilton convention in 1909 and the convention 
 in Vancouver in 1910; for one effect of the mergers 
 had been to weaken the membership and to reduce 
 the revenue derived from annual subscriptions. 
 
 "While it is true that only three or four of the new 
 mergers have affected the Association's revenue this 
 year," reported the committee to the Vancouver con- 
 vention, "they will make their full influence felt 
 during the next twelve months. To illustrate the 
 effect of this movement, mention might be made of 
 one consolidation which comprised thirteen firms, 
 carrying individual membership in the Association on 
 a $25 basis, yielding a total revenue of $325. When 
 the merger was completed the management contented 
 itself with a first and second member for the con- 
 solidation at a cost of $35, all the old memberships 
 being cancelled. The loss to the Association from 
 this one consolidation therefore was $290. During 
 the coming year several other mergers will involve a 
 loss in revenue which your committee conservatively 
 estimates at $1,000. The full effect of the mergers 
 will be felt next year. If all the mergers now formed 
 and others in process of formation confine themselves 
 to two memberships, which is about all that your 
 committee can safely count on, there will probably 
 be fifty resignations through this cause alone. '^ * 
 
 Except for the revolt of the farmers and grain 
 
 * Reports of Committees of the Canadian Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation, Vancouver, Sept. 20, 21, 22, 1910, pp. 7-9.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 45 
 
 growers, made evident by the deputation to Mr. 
 Fielding and Sir Richard Cartwright in February, 
 1909, and by Sir Wilfrid Laurier's tour of the grain- 
 growing provinces in the summer of 1910, the merging 
 of these scores of industrial undertakings was the most 
 prominent feature in tariff history from the revision 
 of 1907 to the withdrawal of the iron and steel 
 bounties at the end of 1910. It is not possible here, 
 nor is it necessary, to take note of all these industrial 
 mergers. Only the mergers of industrial undertak- 
 ings which have tariff protection will be given any 
 attention, and that chiefly for the purpose of showing 
 the measure of protection that is afforded by the tariff 
 to these aggregations, often organised with a view 
 to control of a market from which for thirty years it 
 has been the aim of Conservative and Liberal Govern- 
 ments to exclude all but Canadian manufacturers. 
 
 The first merger in 1908 was of school supplies 
 companies. Three concerns went into the new com- 
 pany, whose factories are at Toronto and Regina, 
 Ontario. It was capitalised at $140,000, evidently 
 without the aid of an outside promoter.* On desks 
 and other school furniture the tariff rate is 30 per cent. 
 On pads and paper, 35 per cent. 
 
 Next came a merger of three companies with soap- 
 boiling works at Winnipeg, Calgary, and Vancouver. 
 Its ostensible purpose was to combat a British soap- 
 making firm that has established itself in Canada. I 
 Soap, it may be recalled, was the first commodity to 
 come prominently into Canadian tariff politics. To 
 safeguard a Montreal manufacturer from British 
 competition specific and ad valorem duties were 
 enacted in the Cayley tariff of 1858, and soap has had 
 adequate protection ever since. To-day the rates are, 
 for common soap $1 a hundred pounds, and 65 cents 
 
 * C£. Globe, Toronto, Feb. 28, 1908. 
 + Ibid., April 2, 1908.
 
 46 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 under the British preference; for perfumed soaps 35 
 per cent, ad valorem, and 22^2 per cent, under the 
 preference. 
 
 New tactics marked the year 1908 with the Con- 
 soHdated Canners — ^an Ontario merger of an earHer 
 date — that pacl\S and distributes tomatoes and corn. 
 In August this consolidation announced a reduction 
 of 30 cents a dozen in its canned products. "This 
 drop," it was explained in the newspapers, "was the 
 result of the activity of the independent canners, who 
 forced the Consolidated Canners to make their rates 
 three months earlier than they did last year, and also 
 greatly to reduce them." "The efforts of the big 
 packers," it was added, "will be devoted this year 
 to the extermination of independent competition in- 
 stead of piling up profits." * 
 
 " In the case of canned goods " (with a protection 
 of i}4 cents, a pound, weight of can or other package 
 to be included in assessing duty), said the Star of 
 Toronto, in commenting on the operations of this 
 consolidation, "the addition to the price the consumer 
 is obliged to pay has been much greater than in the 
 case of combines which have obtained more or less 
 complete control of starch, rolled oats, package 
 cereals, condensed milk, biscuits, sugar, and various 
 other goods of like class. One line of tomatoes will 
 serve as an illustration. This line of the 1907 pack 
 cost the ordinary retailer $1,155^ per dozen. A 
 department store was, by being in a position to take 
 the whole output of one small cannery outside the 
 combine, able to buy the same class of goods at 
 85 cents. And the independent canner made a profit 
 at that." 
 
 "The difference between 85 cents and $1.15)^," 
 continued the Star, "did not, however, all go in the 
 form of illicit profits to be divided between wholesaler 
 
 * Toronto despatch to Witness, Montreal, Aug. 19, 1908.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 47 
 
 and manufacturer. Much of it went to pay interest on 
 capital sunk in buying up canning factories and 
 allowing them to stand in idleness in order that a few 
 men might by combination control the entire output 
 of the country. And still up to the present this effort 
 has not been wholly successful. No sooner is one 
 independent canning factory snuffed out than a fresh 
 set of men, tempted by the wide difference between 
 cost and selling price, step in to establish another. 
 When the factory is built, however, the owners soon 
 find that there is no sure way to the place in which 
 their product can be sold save through a wholesale 
 combine, and they conclude that after all it is better 
 to work with the canners' combine which is allied to 
 the wholesale combine than to fight it. The cost of 
 patching up the treaty in the form of exorbitant prices 
 for canned goods is paid by the consumer."* 
 
 Although it is anticipating a little, it may be 
 added here that the Canadian Canners' Company, 
 which was formed in 1905 by the merger of 24 fac- 
 tories in Ontario, with a capital of $2,000,000, was 
 reorganised in April, 1910. It then became the 
 Dominion Canners' Company, with a capital of 
 $4,000,000, wath headquarters at Hamilton. Hitherto 
 independent canning factories to the number of 23 
 were then brought into the merger, so that 47 fac- 
 tories are now of the Dominion Canners' Company. 
 How the strength that accrued to the company from 
 the merger of igio was used can be judged from the 
 fact that prices for the new pack of corn and tomatoes 
 
 * Siar, Toronto, Nov. ii, 1908. The foregoing extract is from 
 one of a series of articles on combines published in the Star, 
 Toronto, in the winter of 1908-9. The articles appeared on Oct. 31, 
 Nov. 4, 7, II, 14, 21, 25 and 28, Dec. 2, 5, 12, 16, 19, 26 and 30, 
 and Jan. 2 and 6. They were written by Mr. W. L. Smith, of 
 Toronto, the foremost authority in Canada on the connection between 
 the combines and the tariff. They form a vakiable contribution 
 to the economic history of the Dominion, so much so that it is a 
 matter for regret that the seventeen articles have not been made 
 available in book form.
 
 48 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 were advanced to consumers in October, igio.* The 
 grip of the Canners' Company on the whole of 
 Canada can also be judged from the contract, given 
 as a note at the end of this chapter, which the com- 
 pany compelled wholesalers to accept in October, 
 1910. 
 
 The most important merger of igoS was that of 
 the Canada Iron Corporation, Limited. It was the 
 first of the mergers in an industry which has received 
 some sixteen and a half million dollars in bounties 
 since 1883, which has been protected against British 
 and American competition in every tariff since 1879, 
 and which has also had more largesse bestowed upon 
 it by the provincial legislatures and by the munici- 
 palities of Nova Scotia and Ontario than all the other 
 industries in the Dominion combined. The authorised 
 capital of the Iron Corporation is $11,000,000 — bonds, 
 $3,000,000; preferred stock, $3,000,000; and common 
 stock, $5,000,000. Of this capital, $680,000 in bonds 
 was taken in exchange, bond for bond, by the 
 holders of bonds in the consolidated companies, and 
 $2,759,000 in preferred stock and $4,687,000 in com- 
 mon stock was issued as fully paid to the vendors in 
 consideration of the ore mines, blast furnaces and 
 foundries hitherto owned and operated by the merged 
 companies. t 
 
 In addition to ore mines in Ontario, Quebec, 
 New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, there are of the 
 Iron Corporation the historic furnace at Londonderry 
 
 * " The retail grocers are protesting against the recent increase 
 in the price of canned goods in view of the fact that the crop of 
 tomatoes and corn was this year the largest on record." — Hamilton 
 correspondence, Glode, Toronto, Oct. 8, igio. 
 
 ""With a corn crop that has seldom been excelled, and tomatoes 
 all but given away, the announcement comes that the canners have 
 advanced the price of these products in cans from 25 to 50 per 
 cent. The consumer may well wonder what would have happened 
 had there been a short yield." — Chronicle, Quebec, Oct. 11, 1910. 
 
 t Cf. Prospectus of Canada Iron Corporation, Limited, Oct. 24, 
 1908.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 49 
 
 — the only furnace in Canada built by a British con- 
 struction company — for the keeping in blast of which 
 bounties were first established in 1883 ; three charcoal 
 furnaces at Radnor and Drummondsville, Quebec, 
 which were on the bounty list for nearly as many 
 years as the coke furnace at Londonderry; and also 
 a modern coke furnace at Midland, Ontario, that 
 went on the bounty list in 1900. Foundries at 
 Hamilton, St. Thomas, Midland and Fort William, 
 Ontario; at Three Rivers and Montreal, and at 
 Londonderry were also included in the merger. At 
 the Fort William, Three Rivers and Londonderry 
 foundries cast-iron water-pipe is made, and it was on 
 the plea of these foundries in 1906, submitted to the 
 Tariff Commission at Three Rivers and Londonderry, 
 that the duty in the British preference was increased 
 from $5X to $6 a ton to safeguard the Canadian 
 cast-iron water-pipe industry from the competition of 
 Glasgow. 
 
 The mergers that made the most commotion in 
 1909, from Halifax to Vancouver, were in the cement 
 industry — an industry which has been protected since 
 1879, and for which the rates in the Fielding tariff 
 of 1907 are 12^^ cents per 100 lb. in the general list 
 and 8 cents in the British preference, the weight of 
 the package to be included in the weight for duty. 
 The first of these mergers was complete by the end 
 of August. Nine Canadian companies and one 
 American, with a plant in Canada, were included, and 
 of the directorate two men were resident in New 
 York and one at Allentown, Pennsylvania. The 
 authorised capital was $28,500,000 — bonds, 
 $5,000,000; preferred stock, $10,000,000; and com- 
 mon stock, $13,500,000.* This was a Montreal 
 merger. Within a month of its organisation all the 
 Canadian cement companies not then of the Canada 
 
 * Cf. Wtiness, Montreal, Sept. ii, igog. 
 E
 
 50 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Cement Company were organised in Toronto as the 
 Portland Cement Company. Nine companies, with 
 plants in Ontario, were of this second merger, which 
 was capitalised at $10,000,000.* 
 
 Even before the second company was ready for 
 business on the new basis, the price of cement was 
 advanced 30 cents a barrel. f It was complained in 
 the House of Commons that the price of cement was 
 increased from $1 to $15^ a barrel; I and by Oct. 12, 
 1909, the Canadian Union of Municipalities, an 
 organisation which answers to the Municipal Cor- 
 porations Association in England, in session at 
 Halifax, was petitioning the Government to reduce 
 the duty on cement, which hSd been increased by 
 8 cents a barrel since 1897.1 
 
 At this time cement in the United States was sell- 
 ing at the mill at 81 cents a barrel. || At Winnipeg, 
 in March, 1910, the municipality paid $2.24 a barre' 
 for a consignment of 25,000 barrels of cement, as 
 compared with $1.77 a barrel in July, 1909 — a month 
 before the first cement merger was organised.il " It 
 is only a matter of a little figuring," said the Telegram 
 of Winnipeg — a Conservative morning newspaper — 
 "to find out just how much the city loses in this 
 latest contract over the price paid last July, and just 
 how much of tribute is to be paid by Winnipeg 
 citizens to the cement combine. Cement can be pur- 
 chased to-day at $1.05 a barrel at Duluth.** The 
 freight charge to Winnipeg is 70 cents a barrel. The 
 duty on cem.ent imported from the United States is 
 
 * Cf. Globe, Toronto, Sept. 13, igog. 
 
 + Cf. Sun, Toronto, Oct. 6, 1909. 
 
 + Cf. House of Commons Debates, April 12, igro. 
 
 § Cf. Halifax despatch to Witness, Montreal, Oct. 12, iqog. 
 
 II Statement of Commercial, New York, quoted in Sun, Toronto, 
 Sept. 28, iqio. 
 
 H Cf. " Exactions of a Combine," Telegram, Winnipeg, March 
 3, igio. 
 
 **" Duluth, Minnesota, is 379 miles from Winnipeg.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 51 
 
 51^ cents a barrel. Thus, with duty and freight 
 added, cement can be bought in Duluth and shipped 
 to Winnipeg at a fraction less than $2.27 a barrel, 
 or only 3 cents more per barrel than is asked of the 
 tax-payers of Winnipeg in the contract just awarded." 
 "The consumption of cement in Manitoba and Sas- 
 katchewan," continued the Telegram, "is approxi- 
 mately 400,000 barrels yearly. How much of added 
 profits to the cement combine this advance of 47 
 cents per barrel means depends wholly on the number 
 of barrels the consumers of the provinces are willing 
 to buy. In any event, the added cost to the tax- 
 payers of Winnipeg amounts to a pretty penny, and 
 will assist in a nice little slice to the combine when 
 ' melon-cutting ' time comes around." 
 
 It has already been stated that the Telegram is a 
 journal which supports the Conservative party in 
 Manitoba and Dominion politics. In its comments 
 on the gouging of the city of Winnipeg by the 
 cement merger, the Telegram's advocacy of the 
 National Policy of the Conservatives was recalled. 
 "The Telegram.," it continued, "is a believer in the 
 protective tariff principle, but it enters an emphatic 
 protest against a perversion of that principle that 
 gives life and sustenance to combines of whatever 
 description. If the workings of the tariff schedules 
 in the case of cement offer a fair example, it is safe 
 to assume that the policy of the Canada Cement 
 Company will be followed by other corporations eager 
 to mulct the consumer, and that we shall shortly be 
 paying tribute to trusts that exact the price of their 
 domestic product plus import duty and freightage." 
 "The city of Winnipeg," the Telegram added, "is 
 about to dig into its pocket for this additional profit 
 to the cement combine. By the time its people have 
 done a little figuring, and settled with the tax collec- 
 tor, they will have learned a little of the vast difference
 
 52 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 between theory and what the late Grover Cleveland 
 once denominated a condition." * 
 
 The burden of these exactions of the cement com- 
 bine on the tax-payers of the city of Winnipeg was 
 also examined in some detail by the Tribune, an 
 afternoon daily journal, known for twenty years or 
 more from the Lakes to the Pacific coast as an 
 opponent of the tariff policies of both Liberal and 
 Conservative Governments. "In 1909," said the 
 Tribune, -f "about 400,000 barrels of cement, roughly 
 speaking, passed through Winnipeg; and about half 
 of this quantity was used in Winnipeg or for Winni- 
 peg works. In view of the inordinate amount of 
 building in the city, and such works as the new 
 bridges and the new power-plant at Point de Bois — 
 which will alone require at least 60,000 or 70,000 
 barrels — it is more than fair to assume that at least the 
 same quantity will be required by the Winnipeg rate- 
 payers this year — namely, 200,000 barrels. How 
 much more will this amount cost this year than last ? 
 At the present time contractors in the city are paying 
 $2.40 a barrel for the same grade of cement as they 
 were purchasing as low as $1.80 last year, before the 
 merger was formed, which was brought into existence 
 by the high protective tariff — an advance of 60 cents. 
 This means that if this rate is maintained — and there 
 is no reason for supposing anything else — Winnipeg 
 alone will pay $120,000 more for its cement than last 
 year. At the present time the merger is selling 
 cement at from 10 to 15 cents a barrel less than the 
 price at which it can be brought in from the United 
 States. They have protection at from 51 to 52 cents 
 a barrel, which is prohibitive. A barrel of cement 
 can be sold at the factory anywhere in Ontario, in 
 round figures, at $1 a barrel. The duty is, therefore, 
 
 * Telegram, Winnipeg, March 3, 1910. 
 t April 23, igio.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 53 
 
 over 50 per cent. If the duty were reduced to 30 per 
 cent., which is the average charge on manufactured 
 goods, then it would be possible for the consumers 
 of Manitoba to import their cement from the United 
 States, if the Canadian merger did not make a fair 
 price." 
 
 There are at least three men of the directorate of 
 the Canada Cement Company who have grown rich 
 under the National Policy — men whose gains from 
 tariff duties, and in two instances from iron and steel 
 bounties, are as notorious as the betrayal of 1897. 
 These men are prominently of the New Feudalism. 
 They are of the comparatively small group of men 
 who can get practically what they demand when a 
 tariff is being revised. They are of interests against 
 which no Government has dared invoke the anti- 
 trust enactment of 1897; and it has been suggested* 
 that the reason no action was taken to prevent the 
 exactions of the cement merger exposed in the par- 
 liamentary session of 1909-iot was that directors of 
 the company were political supporters of the Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 A gentlemen's agreement was arrived at in March, 
 1909, by manufacturers of enamel baths, sinks and 
 lavatory fittings. + The duties on these were increased, 
 in response to requests from manufacturers at the 
 revision of 1907, from 30 to 35 per cent. Later in 
 the year there was another merger, organised in 
 Montreal, of kindred industries which enjoy the same 
 measure of protection. A company at Port Hope, 
 Ontario, and another company at Amherst, Nova 
 Scotia, were then combined, with an authorised 
 capital of $2,000,000. The ostensible aim of this con- 
 solidation was to permit of specialisation and to 
 
 * Cf. " The Cement Combine," Tribune, Winnipeg, Aug. 6, 
 1910. 
 
 t Cf. House of Commons Debates, April 12 and 26, 1910. 
 \ Cf. Witness, Montreal, March 16, 1909.
 
 54 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 enable these companies to withstand competition from 
 the United States.* It was on the plea that speciali- 
 sation had become necessary to Canadian industries 
 that many increases in duties were made in 1907. 
 
 The Amalgamated Asbestos Company, with an 
 authorised capital of $25,000,000, handling a product 
 on which there is a duty of 25 per cent., was organised 
 in Montreal in May, 1909. "The new corporation," 
 said the Witness, -f "has aroused interest in the public 
 mind, and people are asking what it is and what it 
 is doing. Bonds bearing 5 per cent, interest are 
 authorised to the extent of $15,000,000, of which 
 $7,500,000 are needed for future requirements, and 
 $7,500,000 are to be issued. Preference stock to the 
 amount of $1,875,000, at the rate of 7 per cent, cumu- 
 lative, is to be issued, and common stock to the value 
 of $8,125,000. These are to be listed on the local 
 stock exchange about June 30, the bonds, we under- 
 stand, at a price of about 88, the preference stock at 
 85, and the common stock at 18 to 20." 
 
 The closing months of 1909 were marked by 
 several mergers. Manufacturers of counter check- 
 books and merchants' order-books, which are pro- 
 tected by a duty of 35 per cent., were consolidated 
 in September in a new company capitalised at 
 $1,500,000; I and in October there w-as the first 
 merger in the carriage-building industry, which also 
 enjoys a protection of 35 per cent., and has special 
 and ample safeguards in tariff administration against 
 undervaluations. Four companies, with factories at 
 Montreal, and at Brockville, Alexandria and Orillia, 
 Ontario, were of this merger, which was capitalised 
 at $5,000,000. § 
 
 October also saw the organisation of the Canadian 
 
 * Cf. Globe, Toronto, Sept. 13, 1909. 
 t May 26, 1909. 
 
 + Cf. Witness, Montreal, Sept. 13, 1909. 
 § Ibid., Oct. 27, 1909.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 55 
 
 Car and Foundry Company, with an authorised 
 capital of $11,500,000 — bonds, preferred and common 
 stock. Three companies went into this merger. The 
 protection for the industry — car building for railway, 
 mining, and construction companies— is 30 per cent.; 
 and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association prides 
 itself on the fact that nowadays few cars are added 
 to the equipment of Canadian railways without pay- 
 ment of the duty. "It was ascertained on investiga- 
 tion," the tariff committee of the association reported 
 to the Vancouver convention in September, 1910, 
 "that railroad corporations in Canada have for several 
 years past brought into the Dominion large numbers 
 of railroad cars without paying duty thereon, being 
 under the impression they were entitled to free entry 
 as cars used in international traffic. Your committee 
 caused representations concerning this matter to be 
 made to the Honourable Minister of Customs, and 
 have been assured that steps will be taken to enforce 
 collection of the proper duty. It is a pleasure to 
 note that since the provisions of the law have been 
 pointed out to these railway corporations large orders 
 for cars have been placed with Canadian car builders 
 which would otherwise have gone to United States 
 car builders, depriving not only car builders in 
 Canada, but manufacturers of the materials entering 
 into the construction of the cars, of enjoying the 
 benefits of these orders."* 
 
 The last of the mergers of 1909 noteworthy here 
 for its connection with the tariff was that of the 
 Siemon Company, Limited, comprising four lumber 
 mill companies of Lakefield, Wiarton, and Parry 
 Sound (Ontario), capitalised at $1,000,000, and with 
 an output which includes hardwood flooring and 
 veneers. f Planks and boards dressed on one side 
 
 * Reports of the Standing Committees of the Canadian Manu- 
 facturers' Association, Vancouver, Sept. 20-22, 1910, p. 48. 
 t Cf. Globe, Toronto, Nov. 6, 1909.
 
 56 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 only but not further manufactured, much to the dis- 
 appointment of the lumber mill industry,* are on 
 the free list. But for sawn boards, planks and deals, 
 planed or dressed, when the edges are jointed, 
 tongued, or grooved, there is a duty of 25 per cent., 
 and on veneers the duty is 15 per cent. 
 
 Still another merger announced in October was 
 the Canadian Consolidated Felts, Limited — "a merger 
 of the three leading Canadian felt companies," as it 
 was described in the November number of Industrial 
 Canada, the official organ of the Manufacturers' 
 Association. This merger was capitalised at 
 $2,000,000, The mills of the consolidation are at 
 Berlin and Elmira, Ontario. The output is felt shoes, 
 boots, socks, slippers and felt insoles, leather boots 
 and shoes felt lined, hair felt steam- and water-pipe 
 covering, and lumbermen's knitted stockings — articles 
 on which the duties are 35 per cent, ad valoretn and 
 30 per cent, under the British preference. 
 
 THE TERMS ON WHICH A TARIFF PROTECTED COMBINE 
 DOES BUSINESS WITH WHOLESALERS 
 
 Selling Contract in Duplicate 
 
 Between the Dominion Canners, Limited, hereinafter called the 
 
 " company," and , hereinafter 
 
 called the " wholesaler." 
 
 In consideration of the terms and conditions hereinafter con- 
 tained, the wholesaler agrees to purchase exclusively from the 
 company for a period of one year from this datet all domestic 
 canned fruits and vegetables which the wholesaler may require in 
 their business of the kinds manufactured by the company, and will 
 also purchase at least 50 per cent, of their total year's requirements 
 of any other goods of a kind manufactured by the company, such 
 as baked beans, jams, jellies, preserved fruits, condensed milk and 
 evaporated cream ; and further agrees not to contract for season 
 1911-12 or later until after July i, 1911. 
 
 * Cf. Report of deputation of mill men to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 
 at Vancouver, asking duties on lumber and shingles, News Advertiser, 
 Vancouver, Aug. 18, 1910. 
 
 t This contract was presented to wholesalers in Winnipeg in 
 October, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 57 
 
 1. The canned fruits and vegetables shall be sold under two 
 groups known as " A " and " B," a list of which shall be published 
 and sent to the wholesaler by the company, such list price to show 
 the prices at which the goods will be sold in the different territories. 
 The difference in prices between group " A " and group " B " 
 being two and one-half cents {2%c.) per dozen. 
 
 2. All private brands or labels shall be listed in group "A." 
 The opening prices of standard brands for groups " A " and " B " 
 goods shall be lowest of the season for those brands. 
 
 3. On or before Dec. i in each year, the prices of all canned 
 fruits and vegetables sold under the brands comprised in groups 
 " A " and " B " shall be advanced at least two and one-half cents 
 (2i^c.) per dozen, and may be advanced at other times as the 
 company see fit. 
 
 4. The prices of said goods shall be payable sixty days after 
 shipment without discount, or if paid within twenty days after 
 shipment a discoimt of one and one-half per cent. {i% per cent.) 
 will be allowed. The company shall have the option as to the 
 terms on which the goods shall be sold. 
 
 5. The company will assemble goods for assorted cars where 
 inter-factory shipments are necessary at an extra cost of one cent 
 per case on whole car. Cars will be loaded at the nearest factory 
 at which the goods can be most conveniently assembled. 
 
 6. The wholesaler hereby agrees not to sell or to allow any one 
 in their employ to sell directly or indirectly to any person who 
 has not executed a similar contract and has not violated same, 
 either wholesaler or retailer, by agent or otherwise, any of the 
 products of the company, whether now in stock or owned by them 
 or to be acquired after the date hereof wheresoever or howsoever 
 obtained, at less than the stipulated selling prices and terms in 
 force from time to time as per lists to be issued by the company, 
 a copy of the current selling price lists to be mailed to the whole- 
 saler as soon as issued. 
 
 7. The wholesaler also agrees that they shall not give cash or 
 credit notes, discounts, rebates or other benefits upon sales made 
 or to be made of such products, nor shall they give or sell at a 
 reduction or buy at an advance other goods in consideration of 
 sales of the products aforesaid which would in any way violate 
 or reduce the selling price. 
 
 8. The wholesaler also agrees not to buy domestic canned fruits 
 or vegetables manufactured by any other manufacturer, nor shall 
 they sell either on their own account or as agent or otherwise the 
 product of any other Canadian manufacturer of canned fruits or 
 vegetables. 
 
 9. The wholesaler also covenants that they have not contracted 
 for or bought any canned fruits or vegetables of the pack of 
 1910 put up by any other Canadian manufacturer, and any canned
 
 58 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 goods which they have in stock at the present time of other brands 
 not listed in groups " A " and " B " shall be sold by them at 
 not less than the prices fixed by the company for the sale of said 
 " B " group of canned fruits and vegetables. 
 
 10. The purchase and selling price lists in force from time to 
 time during the continuance of this contract may be changed, and 
 other prices established, by mailing them or otherwise notifying 
 them to the wholesaler, opening prices to be named as late as 
 possible in the season. 
 
 11. The wholesaler agrees not to sell or otherwise supply the 
 products of the company to any person or company who has 
 violated their contract with the company, after having received 
 notice from the company that such violation has taken place. 
 The company consents to the wholesaler selling to any other 
 wholesaler who shall have executed a similar agreement hereto 
 at the wholesale price, provided permission is first obtained from 
 the company. The wholesaler also agrees to advise their salesmen 
 of the terms of this contract ; and the company also reserves the 
 right to cancel the order for goods or any part thereof remaining 
 unshipped in the event of the wholesaler committing a breach of 
 any of the terms of this contract. 
 
 12. The wholesaler further agrees that when called upon, and 
 in any event before payment of the discount hereinafter mentioned, 
 they shall give unconditionally to the company a declaration sworn 
 to by the wholesaler, or by any member of the wholesale firm, or 
 by any traveller or any one in their employ, designated by the 
 company, showing that this contract has been carried out in all 
 its terms. The wholesaler shall not be entitled to the discount 
 until such declaration has been given, and all invoices for goods 
 sold have been paid. Said discount shall be forfeited as liquidated 
 damages for failure to comply with all the terms of this contract. 
 The said discount cannot be anticipated by deducting the same 
 from tlie invoices. 
 
 13. In consideration of the wholesaler purchasing exclusively 
 from the company, as hereinbefore set forth, and complying with 
 all the terms of the contract, the company agrees to pay and 
 allow them a trade discount of ten per cent. (10 per cent.) upon 
 f.o.b. factory price of all canned vegetables, and twelve and one-half 
 per cent. (12^ per cent.) on all canned fruits so purchased ; such 
 discount to be paid half-yearly on the first day of August and 
 the first day of February in each year. 
 
 14. All canned fruits and vegetables sold to the wholesaler are 
 hereby guaranteed as to quality. 
 
 15. Travellers' order books in quadruplicate will be provided by 
 the company if required. 
 
 16. In case the wholesaler shall sell goods outside the province 
 in which their head office is situated, upon request, the company
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 59 
 
 will supply them with price lists of the selling prices ruling in 
 any other province in which they may solicit business, and they 
 agree that in all cases they shall observe the price, terms and 
 conditions ruling in such province. 
 
 17. The company reserves the right to introduce a special group 
 at somewhat reduced prices, terms and discounts, in order to 
 meet special conditions in any locality or localities, if considered 
 necessary. 
 
 18. In the event of a short pack caused by frost, drought or 
 other unexpected causes, and consequent inability to put up a full 
 pack, the company will make to full extent of their pack a pro 
 rata delivery to all buyers whose orders are accepted prior to 
 July 15 ; on any undelivered portion of 60 per cent, of such booked 
 orders company will pay wholesalers 15 cents per case of two 
 dozen tins. Subsequent orders to be booked subject to pack. 
 
 19. The company cannot guarantee delivery of any particular 
 brands from any special factory, but they will give early orders 
 and shipping instructions the preference. 
 
 20. The company agrees to ship the canned fruit and vegetables 
 when ready. Payment shall be made by the wholesaler for goods 
 ordered but not shipped on Dec. i, and they will be held by 
 the company for reasonable length of time thereafter, the whole- 
 saler to pay storage at rate of }4 cent per case per month and 
 insurance after that date. 
 
 21. The wholesaler agrees that all goods sold prior to Dec. i, 
 1910, shall be charged and dated from time of shipment, and that 
 any unshipped portion or order so taken shall be charged up not 
 later than Dec. i, 1910. The wholesaler also agrees that in the 
 event of an advance being advised by the Dominion Canners on 
 or before Dec. i, 19 10, that all goods sold and unshipped at that 
 time shall be charged immediately upon receiving notice of such 
 advance. On all canned goods sold after Dec. i, the wholesaler 
 agrees to charge up at date of shipment at the prices ruling at 
 time of shipment. 
 
 Dated this day of , 1910.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE MERGER ERA 
 
 " There have been mergers in this country that were nothing 
 better than legalised conspiracies against the savings of the people." 
 — Telegram, Toronto, Aug. i8, 1910. 
 
 " The Anti-Combine Bill plans to prevent combines without re- 
 moving the cause. It is rather like placing a nice tempting bone 
 before a dog, and then training him not to touch it under pain of 
 severe punishment. Trouble would be avoided by removing the 
 bone." — Grain Growers'' Guide, Winnipeg, April 27, 1910. 
 
 " The brewers' merger has fallen through. It was intended to 
 include all the establishments of the Province of Quebec. It is 
 now stated that there will be a fall in prices." — Globe, Toronto, 
 April 14, 1908. 
 
 From the point of view of promoters and of merger 
 interests intent on eliminating- all competition within 
 the tariff-protected Dominion, 1910 was a year of 
 unprecedented achievement. The merger procession 
 travelled at an accelerated pace ; it travelled so fast 
 that towards the end of the year it looked as though 
 merger activity would perforce have to stop, because 
 there then remained little in sight that had not 
 already gone through the process. The year was 
 also memorable for a judgment in the assize courts 
 at Toronto that cleared the ground for the establish- 
 ment of a community of interests between the Whole- 
 sale Grocers' Guild and the Retail Merchants' Asso- 
 ciation. By this judgment all legal obstacles were 
 removed to a gentlemen's agreement between these 
 two organisations by which a system of price regula- 
 tion could be brought into service. This system now 
 applies to the grocery business — wholesale and retail 
 — from Sydney and Charlottetown on the Atlantic 
 Coast to Vancouver and Victoria on the Pacific, and 
 
 60
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 6i 
 
 from Hudson's Bay to the international boundary 
 line. 
 
 Fish was the first commodity to come under the 
 merger process in 1910. A beer merger, which was 
 to include all the breweries in Eastern Canada, failed 
 in 1908.* The attempt at a $10,000,000 brewery 
 merger suggested a fish merger, and fish got its turn 
 in March, three months ahead of a bakery merger in 
 Toronto, London and other Ontario cities. f The 
 fish merger was a success, at least from the pro- 
 moter's point of view. Consumers are safeguarded 
 from fish not of the "caught in Canada" brand by 
 a duty of i cent, a pound in the general tariff and 
 ^2 cent, under the preference. The Maritime Fish 
 Corporation, with headquarters in Montreal and out- 
 posts at Canso, Halifax, and Digby, Nova Scotia, 
 was capitalised at $1,000,000. Few of these promoters 
 care to trouble themselves with capitalisations which 
 cannot be counted in the millions. "The fresh fish 
 merger," it was announced by the promoter, "will 
 not put up the price of fresh fish. The idea is to 
 develop to a greater extent the fisheries on the Atlantic 
 coast, which are the greatest in the world. The total 
 fisheries of Canada in 1908-9 totalled $25,451,000, the 
 eastern part contributing $16,022,000 of the amount. 
 But instead of the total being the figure mentioned, 
 it should be $60,000,000 vearly. We are going to 
 help to bring this result about." + 
 
 Oatmeal and breakfast foods came between fish 
 and bakeries in the merger procession. Seven Ontario 
 milling companies, whose output is protected by a 
 duty of 20 per cent, and 15 under the British prefer- 
 ence, § were of this consolidation, which started out 
 with an authorised capital of $4,000,000. "As a 
 
 * Cf. Globe, Toronto, March 24 and April 14, 1908. 
 t Ibid., July 6, 1910. 
 t Star, Montreal, March 3, 1910. 
 
 § From 1901 to 1907 the duty under the preference was 13^ 
 per cent.
 
 62 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 result of the economies effected by this consolidation," 
 was the message of the promoter to the consumers 
 of these cereals, "the interests in charge expect to be 
 able to reduce the price of oatmeal."* 
 
 Box-making companies, safeguarded from too 
 active external competition by a duty of 35 per cent., 
 and 22}^ under the British preference, followed fish 
 and oatmeal in the movement for curtailing com- 
 petition within the National Policy corral. In this 
 consolidation, launched as the Dominion Box and 
 Package Company from Montreal, it was deemed 
 expedient to include two New York representatives 
 on the board of directors. f 
 
 There is a duty of 2'j}4 per cent, on wood-working 
 tools. To ensure that no part of this harvest should 
 go ungarnered a machinery merger, of which Gait, 
 Ontario, is the centre, was organised in July. "The 
 consolidation," wrote the Ottawa correspondent of the 
 Star oi Montreal, "includes concerns in Canada which 
 manufacture wood-working tools and machinery. It 
 will also control a large percentage of the iron- 
 working tool business. The capitalisation of the new 
 company is $4,000,000. divided between bonds, pre- 
 ferred, and common stock." + 
 
 Four lumber mill companies with a capacity of 
 300,000 feet a day — all in British Columbia — were 
 consolidated in September, as the Canadian Pacific 
 Lumber Company, with an authorised capital of 
 $5,000,000. § 
 
 So little do the men who exploit the tariff fear any 
 action by the Government under the anti-combine 
 enactments, that w'hen Sir Wilfrid Laurier was on 
 the Pacific coast in August, 1910, a deputation of 
 lumbermen representing, among others, interests in 
 
 * IVifness, Montreal, March 7, 1910. 
 
 + Ibid., May 2, iqio. 
 
 t Sfar, Montreal, July 10, iqio. 
 
 § Vancouver despatch to Witness, Montreal, Sept. 17, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 63 
 
 the merger which at that time was being organised, 
 waited on the Premier to urge that the time had 
 arrived in the settlement and development of the 
 grain-growing provinces when it was no longer neces- 
 sary to retain rough boards and shingles on the free 
 list to ease the burden of the homesteaders who, in 
 the case of immigrants from Great Britain at any rate, 
 are usually beginning as grain growers with only a 
 small capital.* 
 
 With the exception of the merger of primary and 
 secondary iron and steel plants at Hamilton and 
 Montreal, to be dealt with in a subsequent chapter, 
 the last of the industrial mergers of significance in 
 these pages was that of the Steel and Radiation Com- 
 pany of Canada, capitalised at $5,000,000. Only two 
 companies were of this consolidation, one in Toronto 
 making equipment for the heating of houses and 
 public buildings, and the other, also a Toronto com- 
 pany, manufacturing metal laths used in concrete 
 construction and also steel window sash and case- 
 ments. There is a duty of 30 per cent, on the output 
 of both of these companies. 
 
 The consolidation, which was made public in 
 October, was heralded as the "most important indus- 
 trial merger that has been achieved since the organisa- 
 tion of the Canada Steel Company. f Together," 
 continued the Toronto correspondent of the Witness, 
 of Montreal, "the two plants employ between 250 and 
 300 men ; and, as a result of the introduction of a 
 considerable amount of American capital, both fac- 
 tories will be enlarged." + 
 
 "It means," wrote the same correspondent in a 
 second despatch, "that the whole of the business from 
 
 * Cf. News Advertiser, Vancouver, Aug. 17, 1910. 
 
 t The merger completed in July, iqio, and launched with an 
 authorised capital of $35,000,000, to be dealt with in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 + Witness, Montreal, Oct. 3, 1910.
 
 64 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 the Atlantic to the Pacific has been merged. The 
 company intends to estabHsh blast furnaces, in addi- 
 tion to supplying building materials of all kinds, 
 including structural steel and expanded metal. No 
 stock will be offered for sale in the merger, while the 
 board will include several leading capitalists of Mont- 
 real and Toronto, and the business of the company 
 will be conducted on a close corporation basis."* 
 
 Water-wagon finance is as glaring in some of 
 these mergers of 1906-10 as the headlights of a motor 
 car. But it would be unfair to independent and 
 responsible journalism in Canada to let it even be 
 inferred that there were no protests. One from the 
 point of view of consumers, at the mercy of the men 
 charged with the duty of making dividends on these 
 capitalisations, has been quoted. Another protest 
 worthy of note was published in the interests of over- 
 confiding investors. It is from the Telegram, of 
 Toronto, a Conservative and protectionist journal 
 which towers high among the newspapers in the 
 country between the Atlantic and the Great Lakes by 
 reason of its independence and the public spirit and 
 munificent gifts to the city of Toronto of its pro- 
 prietor, who is also its editor. 
 
 "There have been mergers in this country," wrote 
 the Tele gram, ^ " that were nothing better than legal- 
 ised conspiracies against the savings of the people. 
 People with savings to take care of should learn to 
 differentiate between the merger that is formed as an 
 aid to industrial efficiency and economy, and the 
 merger that is of stock market origin. If the people 
 do not learn to help themselves in the way of taking 
 care of their own savings, where can they look for 
 help ? To the banks, to the law, or to the press ? 
 Was there a word of caution spoken from the watch- 
 
 * Witness, Montreal, Oct. 7, 1910. 
 
 t " The Merger Era," Aug. 18, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 65 
 
 towers of any bank to the thrifty people who rushed 
 their money into the cycle and motor merger * and 
 other flotations ? Can the people look to the law for 
 guidance? The law in some countries requires the 
 promoters to state the amount of their own rake-off. 
 These promoters are compelled to accompany their 
 offer of bonds or stocks to outsiders with a clear and 
 definite statement of the profits that the flotation will 
 give to the insiders. Canadian law, with its over- 
 lapping of federal and provincial powers, does not 
 compel a full disclosure of all the essential facts 
 ' inside the four corners of every prospectus.' The 
 Canadian press, with few exceptions, is so hungry 
 for advertisements that it makes no serious effort to 
 protect investors." 
 
 Industrial mergers, as was stated at the outset of 
 this chapter, were not the only combinations against 
 consumers organised in this, the most active year of 
 Canada's merger era. It was a judgment rendered 
 at the assizes in Toronto, March 7, 1910, by Chief 
 Justice Falconbridge,f that cleared away the legal 
 obstacles to the continued activity of the Wholesale 
 Grocers' Guild, with headquarters at Hamilton ; and 
 when this organisation resumed its activity there 
 came the gentlemen's agreement between the guild 
 and the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada, J 
 by which one of the most comprehensive and far- 
 reaching of combines was established. The Grocers' 
 Guild is one of the oldest price-regulating organisa- 
 
 * Organised in 1906 with a capital of $800,000 subscribed and 
 
 paid up. The shares, of a par value of $50, were down to $30 by 
 
 April, 1907. In 1908 no quotations for them are recorded in the 
 
 Canadian Financial Review," and the stock is not traceable in 
 
 the market reports of current newspapers. 
 
 + The case was styled Rex v. Beckett ef «■/., the defendants 
 being Henry C. Beckett, George E. Bristol, John I. Davidson, Thomas 
 B. Escot, W. G. Craig, Joseph E. Eby, and Thomas Kinnear, the 
 Dominion Wholesale Grocers' Guild and the Ontario Wholesale 
 Grocers' Guild. — Globe, March 8, 1910. 
 
 + Incorporated under a charter granted by the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment in session of 1909-1910. 
 F
 
 66 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 tions in the Dominion.* It was established in 1883, 
 and was in active work and in close alliance with the 
 manufacturers of sugar, starch, tobacco, vinegar and 
 other articles of domestic supply, all protected by the 
 tariff, until November, 1905. Then, at the instance 
 of a co-operative distributing company in Hamilton, 
 which had been refused supplies because it was in 
 the retail as well as in the wholesale business, an 
 information was filed against it by the Attorney- 
 General of Ontario. 
 
 The books and documents of the guild were 
 seized and impounded by the sheriff while the Tariff 
 Commission was in session at Hamilton. The follow- 
 ing day the president and other officers of the guild 
 were before the police stipendiary charged with con- 
 spiracy under the section of the criminal code of the 
 Dominion, which declares it an offence to "unduly 
 prevent or lessen competition in the production, 
 manufacture, sale or supply of any article or com- 
 modity which may be a subject of commerce." f A 
 true bill was returned by the grand jury at the autumn 
 assizes at Hamilton in 1907. 
 
 On indictment before Chief Justice Falconbridge, 
 the defendants elected to be tried before his lordship 
 without a jury. By consent the venue was changed 
 to Toronto. The charge was fivefold, the indictment 
 being that the defendants unlawfully conspired during 
 the years 1898 to 1905, at Hamilton and elsewhere in 
 the province of Ontario, with one another, and with 
 some 208 named persons, firms and corporations, to 
 unduly limit facilities for manufacturing and dealing 
 in various articles of trade; to restrain and injure 
 trade and commerce; to unduly prevent, limit, and 
 lessen production; to unreasonably enhance prices; 
 
 * It is claimed that the Guild comprises 95 per cent, of the 
 wholesale grocery trade in this country, and the membership extends 
 from ocean to ocean. — Globe, Toronto, Oct. 19, 1908. 
 
 t Cf. 63-64 Vict., c. 46, s. 3.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 67 
 
 and to unduly prevent and lessen competition in 
 production, purchase, and sale of such articles. The 
 first count was subsequently abandoned. 
 
 There was no denial that the co-operative society 
 had been put out of business; but chiefly owing to 
 the volume of evidence for the defence in justification 
 of the action of the guild, the trial went on continu- 
 ously from Sept. 21 to Nov. 12, 1908, and also ex- 
 tended over three days in January, 1909. The case 
 for the defendants was that the object of the guild 
 was not to enhance prices to consumers, but to get 
 the manufacturers to fix their prices independently 
 of the grocers, and to pay the grocers so much out 
 of the price as remuneration for handling the goods. 
 
 Various circumstances prevented Chief Justice 
 Falconbridge from giving judgment until March 7, 
 1910. Then his findings of fact were: "(i) The de- 
 fendants have not, nor has any of them, intended to 
 violate the law ; (2) Nor have they, nor has any of 
 them, intended maliciously to injure any persons, 
 firms, or corporations, nor to compass any restraint 
 of trade unconnected with their own business rela- 
 tions. (3) They have been actuated by a bona fide 
 desire to protect their own interests, and that of the 
 wholesale grocery trade in general." 
 
 "There has been no evidence," said the Chief 
 Justice in dismissing the case, "of the enhancing of 
 prices — no complaint by any consumer — no complaint 
 by any retail dealer, but rather approbation. It is 
 cojiceded that the proper method of distribution of 
 goods from the manufacturer is through the wholesale 
 dealer to the retailer, and then to the consumer, be- 
 cause this is the most economical method. For if the 
 manufacturer attempts to deal directly with the con- 
 sumer, or even with the retailer, he must, in a country 
 like Canada, sparsely settled and of enormous area, 
 maintain a staff of travellers and also establish depots
 
 68 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 for his goods at important points. These are great 
 outlets of expenditure, for the traveller carrying one 
 line only of samples gets possibly as large a salary, 
 and certainly spends as much in travelling expenses, 
 as the traveller for a wholesale house who sells, we 
 are told, three or four hundred different articles. 
 This is one reason why the wholesaler undertaking 
 the sole distribution gets a larger profit, and yet the 
 price is not enhanced to the consumer. 
 
 "The various cases of alleged oppression and 
 ' driving out of trade ' of persons who either openly, 
 or by some ingenious device, aim to belong to the 
 wholesale trade, and at the same time sell at retail, 
 are thus," continued the Chief Justice, "easily under- 
 stood. If this system were to be practised it would 
 injuriously affect and demoralise the trade, not only 
 of the wholesaler, but of the retailer, and the consumer 
 would certainly not be better off in the long run. 
 The same remarks apply to the efforts to put a stop 
 to the cutting of prices." " There was some com- 
 plaint," added his lordship, "about the system known 
 as the ' equalisation of rates,' it being contended that 
 it bore unequally and oppressively as against certain 
 towns and districts. This statement was entirely 
 disproved, and it was shown that the ' equalisation ' 
 was based strictly upon the freight rates of the differ- 
 ent railways, so that the retail merchants got their 
 goods at the different points at practically the same 
 prices. 
 
 The Grocers' Guild kept in the background from 
 November, 1905, to March, 1910, when Chief Justice 
 Falconbridge rendered his judgment. In April its 
 members met in Toronto in order that they might 
 have explained to them in popular language just what 
 this judgment meant for the guild, and also to perfect 
 organisation, which had fallen into some disorder 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, March 8, igio.
 
 .4G^/iV5r THE NEW FEUDALISM 69 
 
 between the seizure of the archives by the sheriff at 
 Hamilton at the end of IQ05, and the end of the case 
 in the criminal courts in March, 1910. The secretary 
 of the guild made this explanation : "The decision," 
 he said, "declared that the wholesalers have a right 
 to protect themselves against persons who either 
 openly or by some ingenious device, aim to belong 
 to the wholesale trade, and at the same time, by 
 secret arrangement with retailers, or by opening retail 
 stores, injuriously affect and demoralise the trade of 
 wholesalers." 
 
 Following this explanation there was a discussion 
 as to the future policy of the guild. One member 
 complained that produce brokers who sold to retailers 
 direct were a great annoyance to the wholesale trade. 
 "They should," he said, "be attended to. The whole- 
 salers, by standing together and refusing to handle 
 the line of any manufacturer who would not pay fair 
 toll to retailers could," this member further declared, 
 "have their way." A second member's contribution 
 to this discussion of policy was that "the wholesalers 
 were ' a pack of idiots ' if they did not insist that 
 manufacturers protect the wholesalers " ; while another 
 suggestion was that "it was time for wholesalers to 
 get together and tell the manufacturers what they 
 w^ant and see that they get it." 
 
 "The meeting," said the Sun in its explanation 
 of its significance, "was a jubilation over the Falcon- 
 bridge decision. Still further jubilation occurred 
 over the announcement that Mr. Mackenzie King's 
 anti-combine Bill (the Bill to check combines that 
 was enacted in the 1909-10 session of the Dominion 
 Parliament) is apparently not to carry any teeth for 
 the Grocers' Guild. Incidentally it was made quite 
 clear that the guild intends to take full advantage 
 of its legal position to prevent manufacturers 
 from selling to individual retailers or combinations
 
 70 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 >0f retailers. All sales must be through members of 
 the guild."* 
 
 it was at this meeting also that the gentlemen's 
 agreement was arrived at between the Wholesale 
 Grocers' Guild and the Retail Merchants' Association 
 of Canada. There was then forged the last link in a 
 perfect chain of combines, which, so far as consumers 
 of groceries and other commodities handled by grocers 
 are concerned, encircles the Dominion. From this 
 joint conference of the Grocers' Guild and the Retail 
 Merchants' Association there resulted (i) a combina- 
 tion of domestic manufacturers, fixing prices at a 
 level as high as the tariff against foreign competition 
 will allow; (2) a combination of wholesalers distribut- 
 ing the goods at a uniform price; and (3) a retail 
 combine, charging a fixed price to the consumer for 
 goods w^iich, after passing through two combines, 
 finally reach its shelves. 
 
 "All competition, all initiative, all enterprise," 
 was the comment of the Sun on this arrangement per- 
 fected at the Toronto conference, "is to be excluded 
 from the domestic field; and Mr. Mackenzie King, 
 Minister of Labour at Ottawa, announces in advance 
 that his anti-combine Bill will not grant relief in this 
 case — at all events, by lowering the tariff and allow- 
 ing foreign competitors to come in. And as it is in 
 groceries to-day, it w'ill be in other lines in the near 
 future. It is truly a pleasant prospect that opens out 
 before the Canadian consumer." f 
 
 * Sim, Toronto, April 27, 1910. 
 t Ibid., May 4, 1910.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 TARIFF PROTECTION, BOUNTIES, AND MERGERS 
 
 " The tanners are seeking prohibition of the export of tanbark 
 that they may get cheaper bark from the rural settlers. If the 
 people of Britain would look intelligently at this developed habit 
 of running to the Government to get the start of some fellow- 
 citizen, they would dread protection as they do a pestilence." — 
 Globe, Toronto, Sept. 13, 1909. 
 
 " Forty 3^ears ago Mr. William Thoburn was working in the 
 factory at $1 a day. Thirty years ago he started making flannels. 
 He is now worth a quarter of a million dollars. He needs more 
 protection, don't he? Poor Bill ! " — Mr. Wilbert Mclntyre, M.P., in 
 reply to Mr. William Thoburn, M.P., who had assailed the pre- 
 ference on British woollens, House of Commons Debates, April 13, 
 1909. 
 
 " Western farmers should look to their ultimate welfare. If 
 they did this they would see that a uniform national development is 
 worth making some sacrifices for." — lyidiistrial Canada, September, 
 1910. 
 
 Especially notable among the mergers of 1910 was 
 the Steel Company of Canada. It was organised 
 with an authorised capital of $35,000,000, of which 
 6 per cent, bonds, 7 per cent, preferred stock, and 
 common stock to the amount of $24,850,000 were 
 issued when the new company was floated. Like the 
 cement merger, capitalised at $28,500,000, the Steel 
 Company had its international aspect, for a screw 
 manufacturer of Providence, Rhode Island, was of 
 the directorate.* 
 
 The centre-pioce of the new company was an 
 undertaking which, until the merger, was known as 
 the Hamilton Steel and Iron Company. From the 
 point of view of the student of Canadian political 
 and industrial history, it is to be regretted that the 
 old title has been lost in the merger, for in its political 
 
 * Cf. Abridged prospectus of the Steel Company of Canada, 
 Limited, July 9, 1910. 
 
 71
 
 72 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 aspect the Flam ikon enterprise has the most interest- 
 ing history of any concern in Canada, always except- 
 ing the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, which 
 in this respect surpasses any other industrial under- 
 taking in the English-speaking world. First as the 
 Hamilton Iron and Steel Company, then as the 
 Flamilton Blast and Furnace Company, and finally 
 as the Hamilton Steel and Iron Company, Limited,* 
 this enterprise of the Ontario city in which the 
 National Policy had its birth has leaned with more 
 obvious success on the politicians than any other 
 industrial undertaking in the Dominion west of Cape 
 Breton. Its first blast furnace went on the Dominion 
 bounty list in 1897-8, just as soon as the Laurier 
 Government had adopted and extended the bounty 
 policy of the Conservatives, who had gone out of 
 office in 1896. f Its second furnace went on the list 
 in 1910, and between 1898 and 1910 this Hamilton 
 undertaking drew little short of $1,800,000 from the 
 Treasury at Ottawa in bounties on pig-iron, puddled 
 bar-iron, and steel ingots. 
 
 "It is a very difficult matter," wrote a former 
 editor of the Iron Age, of New York, J "to give any 
 data relating to the labour cost of producing pig-iron, 
 since, of course, it fluctuates from year to year and 
 varies according to localities. Roughly, however, 
 we may say that the labour cost of converting 
 materials into pig-iron at furnaces in the Pittsburgh 
 district would be somewhere between 70 and 90 cents 
 
 * Cf. Iron and steel bounties, reply to question, House of 
 Commons Debates, Feb. 14, 1907. 
 
 t " Seven Liberal members, who since 1896 have been of Laurier 
 administrations, in 1890 voted against a bill of the Macdonald 
 Government for continuing the bounty payments begun in 1883. 
 They were Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Louis Davies, Sir Frederick W. 
 Borden, Sir William Mulock, Mr. Sydney Fisher, Mr. William 
 Paterson, and the late Mr. David Mills."— Cf. House of Commons 
 Debates, May 5, 1890. 
 
 + March i, 1907.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 73 
 
 a ton." These are the figures at exceptionally well- 
 placed American furnaces. It may be that the labour 
 cost per ton was higher at Hamilton, but it was 
 notorious that the aggregate bounty payments from 
 Ottawa between 1897 a^^d 1910 much more than paid 
 the wages bills for that period at all the primary iron 
 and steel plants in the province.* 
 
 This largesse from Ottawa was quite distinct 
 from that from the Ontario Government, which 
 from 1897 to 1901 also paid bounties at the rate 
 of $1 a ton on pig-iron made from Ontario ores at 
 the Hamilton furnace and also at a charcoal furnace 
 at Deseronto.f 
 
 For years a poor mouth was pulled by all these 
 Ontario enterprises, as is always done when the ex- 
 ploiters of a tarifif-supported industry are intent on 
 leaning continuously and heavily on the accommo- 
 dating politicians. But in 1907 the protective tariff 
 was, for the time being, in no danger. Moreover, the 
 iron and steel bounties had been extended for another 
 four years, despite Mr. Fielding's promise at Yar- 
 mouth, Nova Scotia, in 1905 that they should end in 
 1907.+ It was known at Hamilton, in November, 
 1906, when the new tariff was introduced to the House 
 of Commons, that bounties and tariff were secure, 
 and in January, 1907, the larger shareholders in the 
 
 * Su?2, Toronto, Feb. 3, 1907. " In one year the Plamilton 
 Company received $75,000 in bounties in excess of ttie sum paid by 
 it in wages. Banana growing in Manitoba could be made profitable 
 on the same terms." — Sun, Toronto, Jan. 23, 1907. 
 
 + Cf. " Canada's New Place in the Iron and Steel World," 
 Commercial Intelligence, London, June i, 1901. There were only 
 two furnaces in Ontario at the time this law was passed. In 
 Quebec there were then three charcoal furnaces, and in Nova Scotia 
 in 1897 the coke furnace at Londonderry and that at Ferrona were 
 in service. On behalf of the Quebec and Londonderry furnaces it 
 was objected that these Ontario bounties of 1897-1901 were hostile 
 to provincial comity and detrimental to the furnaces outside of 
 Ontario. 
 
 + Cf. Speech by Mr. R. C. Borden at Hanover, Ontario, Oct. i. 
 — Globe, Oct. 2, 1908.
 
 74 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Steel and Iron Company were buying up the stock.* 
 By the end of the year the directors deemed it safe 
 to cut what American and Canadian financiers 
 describe as a "melon." 
 
 How the "melon " was planted and watered, how 
 it grew, and also how it was divided, was described in 
 the Globe by its Hamilton correspondent. "By the 
 formation of a new company, with an increased 
 capitalisation," he wrote, "the Hamilton Steel and 
 Iron Company shareholders will receive over three 
 shares of the new stock for each one they hold of the 
 old. The original stock subscribed w^as $1,513,600, 
 and the new company will be capitalised at $5,000,000. 
 For several years the company had a hard time 
 making both ends meet ; but through Government 
 bounties and careful management they have been 
 enabled during the last few years to pay 6 per cent, 
 dividends and at the same time increase the plant, 
 until it is now worth the sum at which the new com- 
 pany has been capitalised." f 
 
 The cultivation of the "melon" was unfortunate 
 for some of the smaller shareholders — in particular 
 for those who were not on the inside, and were in 
 ignorance of the actual earnings from the sale of the 
 product and from Government bounties. "The lady 
 shareholders and others who parted with their stock 
 at par," wrote the Hamilton correspondent of the 
 News of Toronto, shortly before the " melon " was 
 divided, "are threatening to make trouble for the 
 directors who bought the stock. One of the share- 
 holders has been advised to take proceedings to have 
 
 * " The Hamilton Steel and Iron Company stock has jumped 
 from no to 135 in the last few days, as a result of the effort that is 
 being made by a few of the largest stockholders to buy in all the 
 stocks. The reason for their anxiety is said to be that $500,000 
 worth of bonus stock is to be distributed pro rata among the present 
 shareholders. The plant is to be doubled, but the money will be 
 taken out of the reserve fund." — Hamilton despatch to Wt/ness, 
 Montreal, Feb. 2, 1907. 
 
 t Globe, Toronto, Jan. 10, 1908.
 
 ACjAINST the new feudalism 75 
 
 the sale upset on the ground that it was illegal for 
 the directors to buy stock from the shareholders at 
 par when it was worth much more than that. Some 
 business men claim that the stock is worth 150, though 
 1 15 was the highest price paid by the directors. Now, 
 just when the company is paying back the dividends 
 in arrears and the stock has jumped up in price, they 
 see that they parted with the shares too soon. The 
 company has paid two back dividends, and it is 
 expected that it will pay two more very soon." 
 
 Four other companies, all engaged at the second- 
 ary stages of the iron and steel industry, went into 
 the Steel Company merger. The Canada Screw 
 Company, also of Hamilton, makes wood screws, wire 
 goods, wire nails, and bolts and rivets, on which the 
 duties range from 60 cents per 100 lb. on nails, and 
 75 cents per 100 lb. and 25 per cent, ad valorem on 
 bolts and rivets, to 35 per cent, on screws. The out- 
 put of the plant of the Canada Bolt and Nut Com- 
 pany, at Hamilton — the second of these four com- 
 panies—has a similar protection, and so has that of 
 the Dominion Wire Manufacturing Company, long 
 established at Montreal, where in 1906 it installed 
 open-hearthed furnaces, a blooming mill, and a com- 
 bined rod and merchant mill.* It manufactures iron, 
 steel, brass and copper wire, fencing wire, staples, 
 and other wire goods. The fourth of the concerns 
 allied with the Hamilton Steel and Iron Company in 
 the merger of July, 19 10, was the Montreal Rolling 
 Mills Company,! which manufactures bar iron and 
 steel, on which the duty is $7 a ton under the general 
 tariff and $4.25 under the preference, horse-shoes, 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, Aug. 6, 1906. 
 
 t " The Montreal Rolling Mills Company has increased its capital 
 from $816,000 to $1,200,000, the new issue of stock being issued to 
 shareholders at the rate of one share of new stock for every four 
 shares of the old. The right to the new stock sold at §15 to-day." — 
 Witness, Montreal, May 8, 1907.
 
 76 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 on which the duty is 30 per cent., and wrought 
 tubing, on which the duties range from 15 per cent, 
 to 35 per cent, in the general tariff, and from 10 to 
 20 per cent, under tlie British preference. 
 
 On the basis of its capitahsation, and also from 
 the variety of its output, the Steel Company is the 
 second largest undertaking of its kind in the 
 Dominion. First place has been held since 
 1901 by the Dominion Steel Company, a rail 
 and wire rod manufacturing concern, capitalised at 
 $34,500,000. 
 
 As the bounty laws expire in 19 10, and as the 
 iron and steel industry has been so much to the front 
 in the mergers since the revision of 1907, it may not 
 be out of place at this point to make a brief survey 
 of the industry since bounties were first enacted in 
 1883. There were then three furnaces in the Dominion 
 — two charcoal furnaces at Drummondsville, Quebec, 
 with a combined capacity of 15 tons a day, and the 
 historic furnace at Londonderry, Nova Scotia, with 
 a capacity of 125 tons, VN'hich in 1883 was in the hands 
 of a receiver of a company, the capital for which had 
 been mostly subscribed in England. In the closing 
 months of 19 10 there are in existence 17 furnaces, 
 and at the time of writing all were on the active list, 
 or ready for service, with the exception of a charcoal 
 furnace at Deseronto and a coke furnace at Ferrona, 
 Nova Scotia, The Londonderry furnace was not on 
 the active list in 1909. Two of the newer furnaces — 
 one at Hamilton, and the other at Sault Ste. Marie, 
 Ontario — were then in building. 
 
 Li the first year of the bounty law— 1884 — the 
 production of pig-iron was 29,593 tons, and importa- 
 tions of pig-iron were 52,184 tons. For 1909 the 
 output of Canadian furnaces— five on the active list 
 in Nova Scotia, three in Quebec, and four in Ontario 
 — was 609,431 tons, and importations of pig-iron were
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 77 
 
 73,781 tons.* These figures may be taken as a 
 measure of what the iron and steel bounties had done 
 for the industry up to the end of 1909, the last year 
 for which figures as to production and importation 
 were available. Fifteen furnaces on the active list, 
 or available for service, in 19 10, as compared with 
 three in 1883, serve as another measure of progress. 
 But it is only stating an obvious fact to add that the 
 $16,500,000 paid out from Ottawa in bounties since 
 1883, irrespective of the advantages to the industry 
 from the tariff, from direct and indirect largesse of 
 the provincial Governments of Nova Scotia and 
 Ontario, and from municipal bonuses and tax exemp- 
 tions, have been more than sufficient to pay for the 
 primary equipment — blast furnaces, open-hearth 
 furnaces, and Bessemer converters — now in service 
 at all the iron and steel plants in the Dominion. 
 
 Mergers since 1909 have been pushed so far that 
 the bounty system ends with monopolies in several 
 of the more important lines of the iron and steel 
 industry. There is no competition in structural steel, 
 and none in wire rods, and none is discernible in 
 steel rails. There can be no competition in cast iron 
 water-pipe, for all the pipe foundries that are asso- 
 ciated with pig-metal furnaces are of one of the recent 
 mergers, and of the fifteen blast furnaces available 
 in 19 10, that at Port Arthur, Ontario, is the only one 
 that is compelled to sell the whole of its product in 
 the open market. 
 
 The bounty system thus ends with the primary, 
 and many of the secondary, stages of the industry in 
 the control of only six companies. All of these are 
 of capitalisations sufficiently enormous to put them 
 easily outside the infant industry class. But in 
 19 10 it was still pleaded that the industry was 
 "in the gristle," and that it would not develop 
 
 * Cf. Canadian Year Book, 1909, p. 411
 
 78 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 unless compensatory duties were enacted to take the 
 place of the bounties paid since 1883. "In a few 
 years more," wrote an advocate of the proposed com- 
 pensating duties, "our industries, if they are treated 
 fairly, will be ready to challenge the free competition 
 of the world ; but to leave them without adequate pro- 
 tection now would be to expose them to certain 
 disaster. I say nothing of the slender chance they 
 would have against British iron and steel. It stands 
 to reason that they could not cope with England on 
 even terms any more than a child with a grown 
 man. * 
 
 This plea was put forward in the foremost of the 
 Government newspapers in the Maritime Provinces. 
 It was supported by other newspapers in Nova Scotia, 
 and as late as Oct. 8, 1910, the iron and steel interests 
 — and in particular those of Sydney, Cape Breton — 
 were hopeful that in the session of 1910-11 the 
 Dominion Parliament would grant the industry more 
 protection than it enjoys under the tariff of 1907 : 
 pig-iron, $2.50 in the general tariff and $1.50 under 
 the British preference; steel rails, $7 in the general 
 list and $4.50 under the British preference. f 
 
 * Letter signed " Amherst," on " Compensatory Duties in Lieu 
 of Bounties," Morning Chronicle, Halifax, N.S., Aug. 31, 1910. 
 
 t Cf. The Dominion Steel Company, Witness, Montreal, 
 Oct. 8, 1910.
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 HOME AND EXPORT PRICES FOR FARM IMPLEMENTS 
 
 " Agricultural implements under the United States tariff are 
 free, while here they are taxed one-fifth of their value ; and under 
 the administration of the Act of 1894, 25 per cent, is exacted instead 
 of 20 per cent. Besides this, many agricultural implements are 
 dutiable under the Canadian tariff at 35 per cent." — Federal Elec- 
 tions, 1895 : " Issues of the Campaign," published by the Ontario 
 Liberal Association. 
 
 " As presented to the Convention, these resolutions (of the Ottawa 
 programme) express the concentrated wisdom of the Liberal party 
 of Canada, and they are of such a character that we have no 
 doubt the people of Canada will uphold and endorse them. I am 
 glad to assure our leader that our young Province of Manitoba 
 fought in the last election a gallant fight, though an unsuccessful 
 one, and that we trust the platform of a revenue tariff, accom- 
 panied by the promise of economy, will enable us to send you a 
 substantial delegation to the next Parliament of Canada." — Me. 
 Clifford Sifton, at the Ottawa Liberal Convention of 1893. 
 
 " At this point, Mr. H. A. Bate, secretary of the Ottawa Com- 
 mittee, came forward, and hung above the platform a banner upon 
 which was inscribed, ' Laurier expects every man to do his dut}^.' " 
 — Official Report of the Liberal Convention, Ottawa, 1893. 
 
 Before 1896, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard 
 Cartwright, Sir WilHam Mulock, Sir Louis Davies, 
 Mr. Fielding, Mr. Sydney Fisher, Mr. W. Paterson, 
 Mr. Clifford Sifton, and all the other Liberal leaders 
 of the period were denouncing the National Policy 
 of the Conservative Government, and pledging the 
 Liberals at every party meeting and at every 
 nominating convention to a tariff for revenue only, 
 there was one grievance on which much emphasis 
 was laid. It was that agricultural implements made 
 at Hamilton, Brantford, Toronto, and other centres 
 of the industry in Ontario — protected in the tariff 
 from 1879 to 1894 by duties ranging from i'j}4 to 
 35 per cent., and from 1894 by duties of 20 per cent. 
 — were exported to England, Australia, and the 
 
 79 #
 
 8o THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Argentine, and there sold at much lower prices than 
 in Canada. Particular stress was laid on this griev- 
 ance in Manitoba at the Dominion general election 
 of i8g6, at which the Liberals, after nearly eighteen 
 years of opposition, were returned to power. 
 
 Mr. Clifford Sifton, who was Minister of the 
 Interior from 1896 to 1905 in the Laurier Administra- 
 tion, was then, as now, leader of the Liberal party in 
 Manitoba. At the famous Ottawa Convention of 
 1893, of which Mr. Fielding was president, Mr. 
 Sifton was one of the vice-presidents. He was 
 the foremost opponent in the West, at the general 
 election of 1896, of the duties on agricultural imple- 
 ments, and no candidate appearing before constituen- 
 cies on the Ottawa programme in any part of the 
 Dominion was more emphatic than Mr. Sifton m his 
 denunciation of the system under which it was 
 possible, according to his own statement, to charge 
 a Manitoba grain-grower $140 for a binder that was 
 sold in Scotland for $75. Two utterances of Mr. 
 Sifton's will serve to show the point of view from 
 which he and other Liberals in the West regarded 
 the National Policy duties on farm implements in 
 the days when the Liberals were in opposition. 
 
 "Here," said Mr. Sifton, at a great and enthu- 
 siastic meeting in support of the Ottawa programme 
 at Winnipeg, on the eve of the general election of 
 1896, "was a fact to consider. It had been stated by 
 a gentleman conversant w^ith the facts that the 
 Massey-Harris binder, W'hich sold in Glasgow for 
 $75, cost in Winnipeg $140. Here the Canadian 
 farmer was unduly burdened as against his com- 
 petitors. The great competitors of the Canadian 
 farmer were, among others, those in the Argentine 
 Republic, and in that country they were buying 
 their machines for about half what the Canadian 
 farmer had to pay for them, Another competitor
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 8i 
 
 was Australia, and an implement was shipped from 
 Toronto to Sydney, Australia, over a line heavily 
 subsidised by our money, and laid down there at a 
 freight rate as low, or even lower, than that on an 
 implement from Toronto to Winnipeg." 
 
 "The Canadian manufacturer, when he imports 
 his iron and steel," continued Mr. Sifton, "has to 
 pay a duty on it, which is, of course, repaid to him 
 by the Canadian farmer. But when he ships that 
 machine to a foreign country he gets a rebate on that 
 duty on the material, so that our farmer is paying 
 taxes to allow the manufacturer to sell cheap 
 machinery to his most keen competitors." * 
 
 How the Liberals would deal with the grievance 
 described in the Winnipeg speech, Mr. Sifton ex- 
 plained in the same election campaign at Deloraine, 
 Manitoba. "We will," he then declared, "at once 
 and for ever wipe off the statute-book the villainous 
 protection policy which has stunted the prosperity of 
 the whole country and taken the heart's blood out 
 of the people of Manitoba. Free coal, oil, free cloth- 
 ing, and free implements you shall have if the Liberal 
 party are returned to power. "f 
 
 As soon as the Laurier Government was in power, 
 the New Feudalism, strongest in Montreal, almost 
 equally strong in Toronto, and well-entrenched in 
 Halifax, promptly deserted the Conservative party, 
 and carried all its influence, material and moral, over 
 to the new Government. With this alliance in good 
 working order, the Laurier Cabinet— of which Mr. 
 Sifton, until his resignation in 1905, was, next to 
 Mr. Fielding, the most prominent, the most aggres- 
 sive, and most influential member — and all the 
 Liberals who were of the caucus of the Parliament 
 of 1896-1900, ceased to concern themselves in the 
 
 * Speech reprinted in Tribune, Winnipeg, Sept. 3, 1910. 
 t Cf. Tribune, Winnipeg, Sept. 15, 1910. 
 G
 
 82 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 least about economy, on which so much stress was 
 laid at the Ottawa Convention, or about the duties 
 on farm implements. From 1896 to igoo, and even 
 much longer, the Cabinet, and the rank and file of 
 the supporters of the Laurier Government in the 
 House of Commons, were intent only on forgetting 
 that there had ever been a national convention of 
 the Liberal party at Ottawa. 
 
 The duties on agricultural implements in the 
 Conservative tariff of 1894, like 99 per cent, of the 
 duties not affected by the British preference, were 
 continued when the Laurier Government revised the 
 tariff in 1897 5 ^"d by 1900 Mr. Sifton had travelled 
 so far from his declaration at Deloraine that he 
 assured an Ontario audience that the tariff was no 
 longer an issue in Dominion politics. "It was now," 
 he asserted at Perth, "a dead issue, because the 
 Liberals had succeeded in solving this great question, 
 and the tariff was one that their opponents, if they 
 got the chance, would not change much." * 
 
 Quite early in the 1896-1900 administration a 
 morning newspaper in one of the larger Western 
 cities — which before 1896 had been an organ of the 
 implement manufacturers, and had supported the 
 Conservative Government— joined the ranks of the 
 official Liberal newspapers and fell into line in the 
 campaign to persuade the people of Canada that they 
 were living under quite a different fiscal system than 
 that of the years from 1879 to 1897. One of the first 
 appointments to the Senate after the general election 
 of 1900 was that of a representative of a large imple- 
 ment firm, with headquarters at Toronto; and between 
 1897 ^^'^ 1900 the relations between the Government 
 and the manufacturers of implements, whose tariff 
 and drawback privileges Mr. Sifton had so un- 
 sparingly assailed, were so harmonious that at the 
 election in 1900 Mr. W. E. Massey, of Toronto, 
 
 * Cf. Tribune, Winnipeg, Sept. 3, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 83 
 
 head of the longest-established and largest implement 
 manufacturing company in Canada, and heretofore 
 of the Conservative party, took the Dominion into 
 his confidence as to how he intended to vote. 
 
 "While not subscribing to their policy in its 
 entirety," said Mr. Massey, on the eve of the general 
 election of 1900, "I believe the Laurier Government 
 have rendered the country magnificent service, and 
 should undoubtedly be returned; and I have con- 
 fidence that with the experience gained during the 
 present term they will be prepared to administer the 
 affairs of state in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. 
 I shall therefore support the Government." 
 
 Nor was this satisfaction with the Laurier Govern- 
 ment and the Fielding tariff of 1897 confined to the 
 implement industry. It was general among manufac- 
 turers at the large industrial centres of Ontario. The 
 Canadian Manufacturers' Association — which, before 
 its reorganisation in 1899, was almost exclusively an 
 Ontario institution, with only 132 members* — was 
 as well pleased with the revision of 1897 as Mr. Sifton 
 and Mr. Massey. The journal which in igoo voiced 
 the views of the association was the Canadian Manu- 
 facturer, and at the general election of that year — the 
 first after the revision of 1897 — the Manufacturer 
 made known the attitude of the Ontario protectionists 
 towards the Laurier Government. "As long," it 
 said, "as the main issue presented at our general 
 elections was the maintenance of protection, or a 
 radical departure from it, just so long did the advo- 
 cates of it receive the support of the manufacturers, 
 and thus maintain their control of government. The 
 party now in power fully recognise the imperative 
 necessity of maintaining the policy that so strongly 
 attracts the manufacturers. As long as those in 
 power maintain the policy of protection, the manu- 
 
 * Cf. Speech by Mr. G. M. Murray, secretary of the Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association, Winnipeg, Feb. 9, loio-
 
 84 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 facturers will ask for no change. The existing status 
 is quite satisfactory." * 
 
 Nothing was done by the Laurier Government to 
 ease the burden on farmers and grain grow-ers due 
 to the duty on implements until 1907. At the inquiry 
 by the Tariff Commission, which preceded this re- 
 vision, grain growers in the country between the 
 Rocky Mountains and Lake Superior, and farmers 
 in Ontario, were so persistent in their pleas for lower 
 duties on implements that the duties were lowered by 
 2)^ per cent. But to ensure that implement manu- 
 facturers should not suffer by this inroad on their 
 protection, by a system of rebates they were given 
 practically free raw material ; f and this com- 
 pensating concession was accompanied by a quick- 
 ening of the administration of the Act in order 
 to make sure that Ontario implement manufacturers 
 should lose not one iota of their i'jj4 per cent, pro- 
 tection against the United States owing to under- 
 valuations. 
 
 There are more devices for increasing protection 
 to an industry than can be traced in the schedules of 
 a tariff or in the clauses of a bounty code. Tariff 
 making, whether at Ottawa or Washington, is essen- 
 tially a politician's job. It is as tricky as horse trading. 
 Tariff politics are amazingly complicated, and all the 
 
 * Canadian Manufacturer, Toronto, June, 1900. 
 
 t " When the privilege of free raw material is taken into account 
 it will be seen that the agricultural implement industry, instead of 
 having what might be called a moderate rate of protection, really has 
 a high rate of protection. This is where the ' joker ' in the agricul- 
 tural implement tariff comes in." — Sun, Toronto, Nov. 2, 1910. 
 
 This concession was not extended to manufacturers of ploughs, 
 harrows and seed drills. In noting this fact the Sun (Nov. 9, 
 19 10) recalled the fact that the rebate of 99 per cent, in the 
 duty paid by implement makers on imported " rolled iron, rolled 
 steel and pig iron " is limited to such imports " used in the 
 manufacture, for sale in Canada, of mowing machines, reapers, 
 harvesters, binders and attachments for binders." A like rebate 
 is allowed on steel used " in the manufacture of augers, hammers, 
 bit braces, axes, hatchets, scythes, reaping hooks, hoes, hay or 
 straw knives, agricultural forks, hand rakes and windmills."
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 85 
 
 complication is usually made to tell, not for con- 
 sumers, but for the advantage of some protected in- 
 terest. Favours can be withheld from one industry 
 without logic or reason, so that some other interest 
 may lose none of its tariff protection or be otherwise 
 inconvenienced. Favours, moreover, can be bestowed 
 on privileged interests, which can be traced neither in 
 the schedules of the tariff nor in administrative clauses. 
 At the revision of 1907 a company which, wdth 
 tin-plate on the free list, had established a tin-plate 
 factory at Morrisburg, Ontario, asked for protection 
 against competition from South Wales and from the 
 forty odd tin-plate mills in Ohio and Pennsylvania. 
 The plant at Morrisburg was installed in expecta- 
 tion of either tariff protection or bounties, and a 
 logical application of the National Policy of both 
 Liberals and Conservatives would have insured one 
 or other of these forms of protection to the new 
 industry which the company was attempting to 
 establish in Canada. No Government help was forth- 
 coming. On the one hand, farmers' organisations 
 were at this time objecting to any extension of 
 bounties to any department of the iron and steel in- 
 dustry; on the other hand, tin-w'are manufacturers 
 in Toronto,* and canning companies from British 
 Columbia to the shores of Nova Scotia, objected to 
 any duties on their raw material. The result was 
 that to-day tin-plate is the only manufacturing in- 
 dustry attempted in Canada since 1879 to which the 
 National Policy has not been applied. f 
 
 * Cf. Speech by Mr. Joseph Russell, Conservative candidate 
 in East Toronto, on " Politics and Tinplate," News, Toronto, 
 Oct. 16, 1908. 
 
 t " In the opinion of a great many, Canada is not yet ripe for 
 the establishment of a tin-plate industry, as the demand in the 
 country is scarcely such as would justify the operation of a plant 
 on a sufficiently large scale to make it profitable at a reasonable 
 price for its products. Industries that come ahead of their time 
 should not ask to be supported at the cost of those already 
 established." — Industrial Canada, June, 1908.
 
 86 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Much can be done for an industry at a revision of 
 the tariff by adroit clianges in the duties on raw 
 materials, and at otlier times by orders-in-council 
 changing this or that duty or placing this or that 
 article used by manufacturers as raw material on the 
 free list. These changes are seldom popularly known 
 or understood, although in some issues of Industrial 
 Canada as many as ten or twelve of such changes 
 by orders-in-council* are made known to the world 
 most interested in protection and in these variations 
 or extensions of the protective principle. f 
 
 Much also can be done for a protected industry 
 by the freedom or otherwise with which the drawback 
 clauses — clauses which have been in every Canadian 
 tariff since 1879 — are interpreted, and by the sym- 
 pathetic energy and vigilance+ which can be infused 
 into the administration of the anti-dumping Act, 
 
 * Cf. Industrial Canada, July, 19 lo. 
 
 t " Many of the inequalities which manufacturers have com- 
 plained of in the tariff have been removed by orders-in-council, by 
 rulings of the Board of Customs, and by Departmental decisions 
 and interpretations." — Report of Tariff Committee, Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association, Convention at Vancouver, Sept. 20, 21 
 and 22, 1910. 
 
 i Keports of Standing Committees of the Canadian Manu- 
 facturers' Association, Vancouver, 1910, pp. 29, 41, 58. " Owing to 
 numerous complaints having been received from importers and 
 manufacturers, respecting fraudulent entry of foreign goods under 
 the terms of the British preferential tariff, also the disposal of 
 merchandise at export or dump prices, to the disadvantage of 
 Canadian industries, it was considered that the locating of one 
 or two special customs' investigating officers in Europe would 
 assist materially in the prevention of customs frauds, and procure 
 a greater uniformity in the appraisal of goods for duty purposes. 
 Your committee desire to report that the Hon. the Minister of 
 Customs has appointed a qualified and experienced oflicer to take 
 charge of the work."— Report, Tariff Committee, Canadian Manu- 
 facturers' Association, 1910. 
 
 " It will please you all to know that Mr. Breadner (permanent 
 tariff expert of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association) is welcome 
 at Ottawa. Every facility is afforded him to acquaint the Govern- 
 ment with all matters we desire them to be informed upon. There 
 is such an amicable condition existing between ourselves and the 
 Department at Ottawa that it is of the greatest possible advantage 
 to every one of us." — Mr. P. W. Ellis, at Convention of the 
 Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Vancouver, Sept. 21, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 87 
 
 first introduced into Canadian tariffs in 1904, and 
 made general in its application at the revision of 
 1907, to guarantee that no Canadian manufacturer 
 shall fail of all the advantage possible under the 
 tariff. 
 
 Thus by one method or another the Government 
 was careful that there should be no material loss of 
 protection to the Ontario implement makers when 
 duties were reduced from 20 to 173^ per cent, at the 
 revision in 1907. Since then the journals represent- 
 ing the farmers — such as the Sun, of Toronto — have 
 complained that, with values determined at the 
 customs houses in sympathy with the National Policy 
 — as is easily possible under the anti-dumping law — 
 there has been little gain to farmers from the lower 
 duties of 1907. Buggies, shovels and spades, and 
 granite or enamelled ware, all necessary in farm 
 equipment, were not put on the 175^2 per cent, level; 
 and these articles are often cited as instances where 
 customs-house valuations add to the protection of 
 Canadian manufacturers. 
 
 "There is at Oshawa, Ontario," said the Sun, in 
 complaining of these valuations of imports, "an 
 establishment for the manufacture of buggies. It is 
 protected against foreign competition by a duty on 
 imported buggies of 35 per cent. In other words, 
 American buggy manufacturers must face a tax 
 equal to more than one-third of the value of their 
 vehicles in seeking to compete against their Canadian 
 rivals in this country. The tariff is really higher than 
 this, because the minimum value on which the duty 
 on an open buggy can be appraised by customs 
 officers is fixed by law at $40. Thus, if the actual 
 value of an imported buggy is only $30, the arbitrary 
 valuation of $40 placed upon it for customs purposes 
 makes the duty 45 per cent. Then there is the tariff 
 on granite or enamelled ware, such as is used in
 
 88 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 farm kitchens. Here again the tax is 35 per cent., 
 and here again arbitrary valuations on second-grade 
 goods make the actual tax in many cases a great deal 
 more. That tax certainly does minister to rapacious 
 greed — to the greed of one of the most crushing 
 combines in Canada. The tariff of 32)^ per cent, on 
 shovels and spades is in the same class." * 
 
 Two concessions to implement makers, in fact, 
 to all manufacturers doing an export trade, account 
 for the fact that they can and do sell at lower prices 
 abroad than they sell to farmers and grain growers 
 in Canada. The home market is corralled for them 
 by the tariff; and since 1879 there have been clauses 
 in the tariff under which, on proof of export, a manu- 
 facturer has returned to him ninety-nine per cent, 
 of the duties he has paid on his raw material. 
 
 From 1879 to 1907 the system of drawbacks ap- 
 plied only to manufactures that were exported. At 
 the revision of 1907, when the Laurier Government 
 had to conciliate the manufacturers of agricultural 
 implements, the drawback system was extended. The 
 extension was special and not general ; for it was 
 made to apply only to those manufacturers the duties 
 on whose output were then reduced from 20 to 
 173^ per cent. The drawback in these cases was given 
 whether the agricultural implements were exported or 
 sold in Canada.t 
 
 Exports of farm machinery under these highly 
 favourable conditions are nearly as old as the first 
 National Policy tariff of the Conservative Government 
 of 1 878- 1 896. But this export business was slow in 
 developing. Its growth from year to year can be 
 
 * Sun, Toronto, Aug. lo, 1910. 
 
 t " Every protectionist is a free trader when it is to his 
 advantage to be. Senator Jones is a free trader in iron and 
 steel when it goes into his own agricultural implements. But he 
 is a protectionist when it comes to completed implements." — Grain 
 Growers' Guide, Nov. 9, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 89 
 
 traced in the Auditor-General's reports, where there is 
 a record of every payment made under the drawback 
 clauses. The total payments in respect of agricul- 
 tural equipment in 1893 were only $7,741 for 
 machinery, and only $95 for axes, forks, rakes and 
 hoes ; and in that year drawbacks were paid only 
 in connection with twenty-three lines of manufacture, 
 including $504 paid in respect of flour. 
 
 By 1899-1900, however, the export business had 
 grown enormously. Drawback payments were made 
 in connection with fifty-three lines of manufactures. 
 The total payments were $153,760. Of this sum 
 $80,070 represented drawbacks on agricultural 
 machinery; and of this sum $66,878 consisted of 
 payments on exports from the Massey Harris factories 
 at Brantford and Toronto — the company to which 
 Mr. Sifton had referred in his speech at Winnipeg 
 in 1896. 
 
 For 1900-1901 drawback payments in respect of 
 agricultural machinery were $54,636, of which $50,135 
 were to the Massey Harris Company. In 1901-2 
 the total drawback payments were $327,650 in respect 
 of fifty-eight lines of manufacture; and the total pay- 
 ments on agricultural machinery were $95,981, with 
 $89,695 as the share of the Toronto and Brantford 
 company, which was the first Canadian firm manu- 
 facturing beyond the primary stage in the iron and 
 steel industry to push for export business. 
 
 The total drawback payments in 1905-6 reached 
 $207,169, with steel, exported chiefly from Sydney, 
 figuring at $4,186. By this time the total payments 
 in respect of agricultural implements exported was 
 $112,048, as compared with $107,230 in 1904-5; and 
 there were in 1905-6 three Ontario companies ex- 
 porting agricultural machinery. The Cockshutt 
 Plough Company, Brantford, drew $10,267; the 
 International Harvester Company, an American con-
 
 90 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 cern established at Hamilton, drew $6ii; and the 
 payments to the Massey Harris Company for 1905-6 
 were $90,554. At the revision of the tariff in 1907 
 the fiscal year was changed, so that the Auditor- 
 General's report for 1906-7, the last year from which 
 I am quoting, covered only the nine months ending 
 March 31, 1907. For this period there were draw- 
 back payments in respect of one hundred and twenty- 
 four lines of manufactures, as compared with only 
 twenty-three in 1893. 
 
 Agricultural implements, axes and axe handles, 
 bicycles and motors, boots and shoes, horse shoes 
 and horse-shoe nails, organs and pianos, paint, 
 pickles, pulleys and tackle, safety pins, sawmill 
 machinery, type-writers, breakfast foods and pre- 
 served lobster, began to appear in the drawback list 
 as early as 1900-1901, and by 1906-7 the Auditor- 
 General's enumeration included, as has been said, 
 one hundred and twenty-four lines of industry. The 
 total payments for these nine months were $552,304. 
 But the payments w^ere comparatively small in 
 respect of exports not the product of primary or 
 secondary iron and steel manufacturers. The 
 Dominion Iron and Steel Company drew $12,299 in 
 respect of its exports of pig iron, ingots, and billets; 
 and of the payments in respect of agricultural 
 machinery, $9,960 went to a plough company at 
 Brantford, which does not have the advantage of the 
 drawback system of 1907 for its home trade; $442 to 
 the International Harvester Company at Hamilton; 
 and $177,175 to the Massey Harris factories in respect 
 of its home and export trade. 
 
 The agricultural implement manufacturers' divi- 
 sion of the New Feudalism was disposed to conclude 
 that the bone grudgingly flung to the organised 
 farmers of Ontario and of the prairie provinces in 
 1907 would end an agitation which antedates the
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 91 
 
 Laurier regime at Ottawa.* The division is small, 
 and is dominated by one company, capitalised at 
 $12,000,000; but the men who are of it have since 
 1896 been as near to the Government as the men at 
 the primary stages of the iron and steel industry, 
 who since then have had bestowed on them 
 $16,500,000 in bounties. 
 
 These men were conceded various compensating 
 advantages at the revision of 1907. Some of these 
 compensations have already been described in this 
 chapter. One of them, it is insisted in the West, has 
 resulted in duties on agricultural implements being 
 higher under the tariff of 1907 than they were under 
 the Conservative tariff of 1894, or the tariff of the 
 Laurier Government of 1897. " Previous to the re- 
 duction in the duty on binders from 20 to 17% per 
 cent.," said the Grain Growers' Guide, f in a con- 
 troversy with Senator L. M. Jones, president of the 
 Massey Harris Company, "binders were appraised at 
 $80, with 20 per cent, duty, giving a duty of $16 on 
 each binder. At present the international 5- and 
 6-foot binders, with carriers, are appraised at $107.50, 
 and 8-foot binders at $110, making the duty $18.81 
 and $19.25 respectively, as against $16 before the 
 duty was lowered." 
 
 The drawback system for export business, of 
 enormously more value to implement manufacturers 
 in 1907 than it was when it was so vigorously assailed 
 by the Liberals,! was undisturbed in 1907, as it had 
 been in 1897, when, despite Mr. Sifton's specific and 
 
 * Cf. "The Implement Tariff Case," by Senator L. M. Jones, 
 Grain Growers' Guide, Oct. 19, 1910. 
 
 " Tariff for revenue only. Farm implements, binding twine, 
 fencing wire, nails, lumber and coal oil to be free of duty." — 
 Platform adopted at the Brandon (Manitoba) Convention of the 
 Patrons of Industry, February, 1892. 
 
 t Oct. 19, 1910. 
 
 t "The total drawbacks for 1909 on agricultural implements were 
 $207,458. The Massey Harris Company drew $158,973 >" respect 
 of its "home and export trade." — Auditor-General's Report, 1909.
 
 92 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 vehement pledge at Deloraine, the vested interests 
 of the implement manufacturers were tenderly 
 regarded and amply safeguarded by the Laurier 
 Government. 
 
 The 2% per cent, reduction was also treated by 
 Liberal politicians at Ottawa as a settlement that 
 should satisfy the farmers of Ontario and the prairie 
 provinces for many years to come. In the session 
 of 1906-7 a resolution urging duties of 10 per cent, 
 instead of 173^ per cent., originating with a little 
 group of independent Conservatives from the West, 
 was easily defeated in the House of Commons; and 
 in this division Mr. R. L. Borden, the leader of the 
 Opposition, voted with the Government.* In the 
 following session Western members again unsuccess- 
 fully raised the question, f and in July, 1910, 
 Mr. Sifton deprecated further agitation. " In my 
 judgment," wrote the member for Brandon, who, 
 when he was first a candidate for the House of 
 Commons, gave such a strong and jaunty lead in the 
 assault on the statutory privileges of the Toronto, 
 Hamilton and Brantford implement manufacturers, 
 "it is very doubtful if any substantial reduction can 
 be made in the tariff at the present time with any 
 advantage to the public. My belief is that the tariff 
 on the whole is fairly satisfactory, and an agitation 
 for a further reduction is not likely to bring about 
 beneficial results. "i 
 
 The farmers of the four provinces in which they 
 are organised, and in which they are most numerous, 
 were not led astray by the campaign of deception 
 
 * House of Commons Debates, April 2, 1907. 
 
 t Ibid., May 25, 1908. 
 
 + Grain Growers' Guide, July 13, 1910. " The hopes of free 
 trade, raised during the tour of the Premier in the West," wrote 
 the Montreal correspondent of the Daily Mail, London, concerning 
 this letter, " are being subjected to a process of smothering by 
 Mr. Sifton, who carries under his hat much of the brains of the 
 Liberal party, West and East." — Daily Mail, Sept. 17, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 93 
 
 from 1897 ^^ 1910* — by the propaganda originating 
 at Ottawa and pushed by all the Government news- 
 papers, to persuade the people that they were under 
 a fiscal system much less burdensome and also quite 
 distinct from that of 1879 to 1896, for which Sir John 
 Macdonald and the Conservatives had been respon- 
 sible. This campaign, as has been shown in an 
 earlier chapter, had no success with the granges of 
 Ontario and the grain-growers' associations of the 
 West; and in these provinces, and by these organisa- 
 tions, there was at no time between 1907 and 19 10 
 any disposition to rest satisfied with the paltry con- 
 cession made to farmers in the implement schedule 
 of the second Fielding tariff. 
 
 All these farmers' organisations are of a non- 
 partisan character. It would be difficult for them to 
 be otherwise, t for both political parties at Ottawa 
 have bound themselves to the service of the New 
 Feudalism ; and, except during the few weeks that 
 precede a general election, they pretend to no care for 
 the interests of any of the people of Canada who are 
 not of the privileged twenty-five hundred^ — tariff and 
 bounty beneficiaries, exploiters of railway, steamship, § 
 
 * " We have carried into effect every plank of the Ottawa 
 platform except one ; and discussions in this House and in the 
 other chamber show that that plank — reform of the Senate — has 
 not been abandoned." — Mr. Paterson, Minister of Customs since 
 1896 ; House of Commons Debates, March 19, 1908. 
 
 t " Difference of principle between these warring parties there 
 is substantially none. Nobody can tell what constitutes a Con- 
 servative or what constitutes a Liberal. Principles, so-called, are 
 adopted or discarded just as the exigencies of the struggle require." 
 — Goldwin Smith, Sufi, Toronto, Sept. 30, 1908. 
 
 + " Always bear in mind that the good old patriotic slogan of 
 the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, ' Canada for Canadians,' 
 means ' Canada for 2,500 Canadians.' " — Grain Growers' Guide, 
 Feb. 23, 1910. 
 
 § " The Department of Trade and Commerce enters into nearly 
 sixty contracts for steamship services, some wholly within Canada, 
 others to British and foreign countries. All these matters entail a 
 large amount of correspondence and an expenditure on behalf of 
 Canada during the year of over $1,000,000." — F. C. T. O'Hara, 
 Acting Deputy-Minister, Department of Trade and Commerce, 
 Ottawa, Industrial Canada, June, 1908.
 
 94 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 cold storage* and dry dock subsidies, f jobbers 
 in coal, timber, and other Government lands, jobbers 
 in sites for post offices and other Government build- 
 ings, contractors, owners of Government newspapers, | 
 commission men and traders of the patronage list§ — 
 who constitute the New Feudalism, and are obsequi- 
 ously recognised by the politicians as the overlords 
 of the Dominion. II 
 
 These overlords, obeyed by the politicians since 
 1879, and increasingly so since 1896,11 when both 
 political parties swore fealty to the New Feudalism, 
 
 * Cf. House of Commons Debates, May 29, 1908. 
 
 t " Up to March 31, 1909, the total amount paid out in railway 
 subsidies for construction by the Dominion Government was 
 $64,902,019, of which $30,000,000 had been paid to the Canadian 
 Pacific Railway Company. The Government had also given 
 $12,126,062 in other aids to the railways. From the Provincial 
 Governments the railways drew $32,538,496 in aid, and $12,580,825 
 from municipalities — in all, a total of $122,147,402. Land grants 
 to the railways in the same period were : from the Dominion 
 Government, 31,864,074 acres, and from Provincial Governments, 
 23,251,943 acres." — " Canada Year-Book," 1909, p. 348. 
 
 I " The Chronicle (Halifax, Nova Scotia) is a newspaper in name 
 only. That paper tells only what suits itself. Narrow partisan 
 interests and the interests of the Government subsidising it, alone 
 are considered. The newest and latest proof that the $200,000 
 subsidised organ is not a nevi'spaper at all is furnished in its 
 suppression of any reference whatever to the trial and conviction 
 of Daniel McLaughlin, a Liberal ' worker,' of Colchester, for 
 having criminally omitted the names of eight Conservatives from 
 the list of voters in Five Islands, Economy, and other near-by 
 sections. McLaughlin was tried on two separate charges in con- 
 nection with this stealing of the franchise from men who should 
 have had a vote ; the case abounded in sensational features, and 
 the reviser was mulcted altogether in penalties amounting to more 
 than $500, but the Chronicle prints not a word of the news." — 
 Herald, Halifax, Sept. 22, 1908. 
 
 § " Large amounts have been spent for supplies bought from 
 those enjoying political patronage at what may be called retail 
 rates." — Report of Courtney-Fyshe-Bazin Commission, March 17, 
 1908. 
 
 II See Notes at end of this chapter. 
 
 If Cf. Debates in House of Commons at Ottawa on Tariff Acts 
 of 1897, 1904 and 1907, on bounty bills, on anti-dumping bill of 
 1904 ; in fact, on any of the numerous bills continuing or ex- 
 tending the National Policy of 1879. Also minutes of Tariff 
 Commission of 1905-6 for demands of New Feudalism and con- 
 cessions to these demands at revision of 1907.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 95 
 
 have never been recognised by the organised farmers 
 of the four provinces which He between the Ottawa 
 River and the Rocky Mountains. The revolt of the 
 farmers, it should be kept in mind, does not date 
 from the Premier's tour of the West in 1910. It has 
 been continuous since it was begun by Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir Louis Davies, 
 Sir William Mulock and Mr. W. Paterson in the 
 early days of the Conservative National Policy, and 
 reinforced in the last three years of the Conservative 
 regime by Mr. Fielding in Nova Scotia and Mr. 
 Clifford Sifton in Manitoba. After these politicians 
 took service with the overlords on the eve of the 
 general election of 1896,* the revolt against the tariff, 
 bounties and combines necessarily became exclusively 
 a farmers' movement. 
 
 The farmers continued the fight for three obvious 
 reasons. It is the farmers who carry all the burdens 
 of protection and who share none of its advantages, 
 for prices for grain and foodstuffs are made in 
 London, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow — a fact 
 
 * " In 1896 the tariff was satisfactor}'. What would the Liberals 
 do? Men feared that an attempt would be made to put Cobdenite 
 theories into practice. It was necessary for Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 to issue a signed statement promising to safeguard Canadian 
 industry before he dared to go to the polls. John Bertram was 
 elected in Centre Toronto because of his pledge. Other men were 
 successful for the same reason." — News, Toronto, Oct. 6, 1910. 
 
 " In the old days, when free trade was so vigorously advocated 
 by one of the great parties, every election brought a feeling of 
 uncertainty that was demoralising to the business interests of the 
 country. Capital was afraid to come into the country lest a change 
 of Government would bring about such a change in conditions 
 that it would be greatly depreciated or wholly lost. Every four or 
 five years the same uncertainty had to be faced, and the progress 
 of the country was retarded by the always threatening danger. 
 After the change took place in 1896, and the continuance of the 
 old policy of protecting Canadian industry was assured, capital 
 got confidence, and we have seen our trade and commerce and 
 our manufacturing expand as never before. The incoming of the 
 Liberal party in 1896 was a great thing for Canada, in so far as 
 it served to demonstrate that free trade was an impossible policy 
 for this country, and that neither party would attempt to put 
 it in force." — Industrial Canada, November, 1908.
 
 96 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 so well recognised by the Government that since 1903 
 it has subsidised the Canadian Associated Press,* an 
 important part of whose mission is to send by cable 
 from these market centres the variations in prices from 
 day to day of food products exported from the 
 Dominion. 
 
 It became a farmers' movement also because in 
 Ontario and in the prairie provinces farmers are well 
 organised. Consumers in the cities are not organ- 
 ised, and as inarticulate units they must carry the 
 burdens of the New Feudalism, with little oppor- 
 tunity for revolt — practically none through political 
 action in a country with only two parties, neither 
 actuated by political principles, and both thirled to 
 the overlords of the New Feudalism. 
 
 The farmers' revolt was never more continuous, 
 never better organised, never more effectively served 
 by its press, f and never of more achievement than 
 in the four years after the Tariff Commission of 
 1905-6. At the revision of 1907 the revolt had 
 negative successes of far greater significance than 
 its small positive successes, of which the only one 
 of value was the microscopic concession embodied in 
 the agricultural implement schedule. 
 
 Thereafter, until Sir Wilfrid Laurier's tour in 
 July and August, 1910, the revolt in Ontario, Mani- 
 toba, Saskatchewan and Alberta was directed mainly 
 against duties on all lines of farm equipment in the 
 tariff of 1907, against the fiscal system — tariff pro- 
 tection and drawbacks — which made it possible for 
 farm implements from factories in Ontario to be sold 
 
 * The Canadian Subsidy to the Service of British Cable News, 
 Sell's " Dictionary of the World's Press," 1904, pp. 23-24; House of 
 Commons Debates, May 2, 1910. 
 
 t Not for years has the tariff question been exploited so 
 recklessly by class papers as it has this year by so-called friends 
 of the farmers. — Industrial Canada, August, 19 lo.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 97 
 
 in England and Scotland at prices from " 10 to 30 per 
 cent, less than in the Canadian West."* 
 
 During these four years, as was inevitable from 
 the large inflow of new settlers from England and 
 Scotland and from the United States into the prairie 
 provinces, there was an increasing coming and going 
 between these provinces and Great Britain, and also 
 between them and the United States. Settlers visit- 
 ing their homes compared prices of farm equipment 
 in England — farm equipment made in Canada and 
 exported — and also compared American and Cana- 
 dian prices for similar machinery made and used on 
 both sides of the boundary line. Thus it became 
 notorious that Canadian farm implements were sold 
 at lower prices in Great Britain than in Canada; and 
 also that, despite the duty of 20 per cent, in the 
 Dingley tariff of 1897-1909, agricultural implements 
 were cheaper in the grain-growing states than in the 
 grain-growing provinces of the Dominion. f 
 
 "Ellis Munford," reads a report of the meeting 
 of Willow Grove Grange, Palmerston, Ontario, held 
 in July, 1909, "gave two striking illustrations of the 
 extent to which the tariff does bear upon the Canadian 
 
 * " That whereas Canadian machinery can be purchased at from 
 10 per cent, to 30 per cent, less in Great Britain than in the 
 Canadian West, and whereas we believe that such conditions are 
 caused by the high protective tariff existing at the present time, 
 therefore be it resolved that immediate steps be taken regarding 
 the said tariff, so that the home purchaser may at least be able 
 to purchase as cheaply as the outside world ; and, further, that 
 the Ottawa Government be requested to accept the unconditional 
 offer of the United States Government for reciprocal free trade 
 in farm implements." — Minutes of Convention of Grain Growers' 
 Associations of Saskatchewan, attended by 600 delegates. Prince 
 Albert, Feb. 9-11, 1910; Grain Growers^ Guide, Feb. 16, igio. 
 
 t " In recent issues several are trying to prove that Canadian- 
 made machinery is sold for less money in England than it is here. 
 But there is no need of going to England, as the International 
 Harvester Company were a short time ago (and I believe they 
 are yet) selling binders nearly 30 per cent, less in North Dakota 
 than they are charging for them in Manitoba." — C. H. Hart, 
 Foam Lake, Saskatchewan, in Grain Grotcers' Guide, Oct. 26, 
 igio. 
 H
 
 98 TKE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 farmer. When he was over in free trade England 
 last year he found Massey Harris binders selling for 
 ^20 each, while here the cash price was $130. At 
 the same time, he saw double ploughs made in 
 Canada selling at $3 less than here."* "Canadian 
 binders bought by Saskatchewan farmers for $160," 
 said the Grain Growers' Guide, November 3, 1909, 
 "are sold in Liverpool for $126 and $136. Com- 
 petition may be the cause of it, but money ought 
 to be as good in one place as in another." 
 
 These instances of the working of a fiscal system 
 under which a "made in Canada" binder can be 
 bought in England for less money than in Ontario 
 or Saskatchewan are from the Sun and the Grain 
 Growers' Guide, the widely recognised organs of the 
 revolt. For proof that agricultural implements are 
 cheaper in the United States than in Canada, the 
 news columns of the Globe, of Toronto, may be 
 drawn upon. "Talk to almost any man, whether he 
 be farmer, merchant, banker, or real estate agent," 
 wrote a correspondent of the Globe, from Regina, 
 Saskatchewan,! in a review of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's 
 tour, "and he will inevitably revert to anathemas on 
 protective tariffs. And he is loaded with dates and 
 figures, too. He will inform you, for instance, that 
 one harvester company has works at both Chicago 
 and Hamilton. He will produce railway tariffs to 
 show that the freight rate from Chicago to Idaho is 
 about equal to that from Hamilton to Saskatchewan. 
 Then he will ask you why the Idaho farmer pays 
 $48 for his mower, while his brother in Saskatchewan 
 is taxed $65 for the same implement. He wants to 
 know why another binder, made by a firm in Ontario, 
 sells for $147.24 in England, while it costs $168 ' and 
 more ' in the Canadian West." I 
 
 * Sun, July 21, igog. 
 
 + Aug. 2, iqio. 
 
 + Globe, Aug. 5, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 99 
 
 "The only competitor in the manufacture of agri- 
 cultural machines," said the Farmers' Tribune, of 
 Winnipeg, in commenting on the conditions de- 
 scribed in the Globe, "is the United States. If there 
 is any difference in the wages paid in the two 
 countries, those of the United States are the higher. 
 Yet these machines are protected by a duty which 
 is monstrous when their intrinsic value is considered. 
 Have you ever examined a self-binder, for example? 
 If so, when you had calculated the value of the 
 material in such a machine, the cost of the labour 
 of putting it together, and had made a liberal allow- 
 ance for interest on capital, wear and tear of plant 
 and expenses of administration, you would have 
 found it very difficult to bring the cost of production 
 up to $40. Yet these machines are now assessed 
 for duty at nearly $100, and because of the practical 
 monopoly which exists the Western farmer pays for 
 them from $145 to $170. It is true the duty was 
 nominally reduced from 20 to 17^ per cent., but 
 this reduction was accompanied by an increase in the 
 appraised value which more than offset its benefit. 
 On any fair valuation of the cost of these machines, 
 the present nominal duty of 17^^ per cent, represents 
 an actual duty of double that amount."* 
 
 Six months before the correspondent of the Globe 
 described the unrest of farmers of the prairie pro- 
 vinces, this question had been discussed at the pro- 
 vincial conventions of the grain-growers of Manitoba 
 and Saskatchewan, and of the United Farmers of 
 Alberta. "There is," said the Grain Growers' Guide, 
 in an editorial survey of these three conventions of 
 the winter of 1909-10, "but one opinion among the 
 farmers of Western Canada on the tariff, so far 
 as can be judged in the action of the conventions 
 held in the three provinces. The fact that farm 
 
 * Farmers'' Tribune, Aug. 24, 1910.
 
 100 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 machinery manufactured in Canada sells at a lower 
 price in Great Britain than it does in Canada is due 
 to the protective tariff. The farmers believe that 
 they should be able to buy the machinery as cheap 
 as it is sold anywhere else. The only way 
 they see of doing this is by having the tariff 
 cut down." * 
 
 Three distinct replies were made to these com- 
 plaints of the farmers that they were compelled to 
 pay more than farmers in Great Britain for machinery 
 made in Toronto, Hamilton and Brantford. The 
 first was in Industrial Canada, the organ of the 
 
 * Grain Growers'' Guide, Feb. 26, 19 10. 
 
 Tring Local Union, No. 24, United Farmers of Alberta, has 
 submitted the following resolution for discussion at the Annual 
 Convention : " That it is the opinion of this Union that a com- 
 mission should be appointed to inquire into the reason why the 
 machinery companies should charge us amounts for their machines 
 which are entirely unreasonable as compared to the prices charged 
 for the same machinery in other countries, and that the commission 
 in question should be appointed by the Annual Convention of the 
 United Farmers' Asscciation." — Grain Growers^ Guide, Nov. 3, 1909. 
 
 " Resolved that we, the Roseview Union, most heartily endorse 
 the resolution submitted by the Tring Union regarding machinery 
 prices, and this Union would urge upon the executive to move 
 in the direction of a farmers' factory for the manufacture of our 
 farm implements, if some step is not taken in the near future by 
 manufacturers to lower prices most substantially." — Grain Growers^ 
 Guide, Dec. 15, 1909. 
 
 " Whereas we are of the opinion that the high price for farm 
 machinery in this country is not in comparison with the cost of 
 production, and whereas we believe that the duty on farm machinery 
 has only been a help to the creation of a monopoly ; therefore be 
 it resolved that we, the members of the Humboldt Grain Growers' 
 Association of Saskatchewan, are strongly in favour of abolishing 
 the duty on American farm machinery coming into Canada." — 
 Grain Growers^ Guide, March 23, 19 10. 
 
 See also letters by J. A. Murray, Wapella, Saskatchewan, giving 
 prices quoted for binders at Reading, England, and Castle Douglas, 
 Scotland, in Grain Growers'' Guide, Jan. 12 and July 27, 1910. 
 " These quotations," wrote Mr. Murray, " were gotten to prove 
 that the tariff system was the cause of the difference of prices 
 at home and elsewhere. It is evident that the home purchaser 
 is paying quite a premium on machinery, this premium being a 
 means of making millions for a few at the expense of the many. 
 We also hear a great deal about building up the Empire, but I 
 think our first thoughts should be directed to the building up of 
 a tariff that would give the home purchaser at least as cheap 
 machinery as the outside world."
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM loi 
 
 Canadian Manufacturers' Association ; the second 
 was from Mr. H. G. Waddie, of the Canadian Drawn 
 Steel Company, of Hamilton; and the third, and most 
 significant, was from Senator Jones, of the Massey 
 Harris Company, a company whose tariff protection 
 and drawback payments have been subjects of much 
 acrimonious discussion in politics from the earliest 
 days of the National Policy. 
 
 "We have made careful inquiries of manufac- 
 turers," said I?idustrial Canada,* "and we are now 
 able to state positively that the conditions complained 
 of do not exist. No specific instances were brought 
 forward so that the fallacy of the charges could be 
 definitely fixed. A general error, however, in com- 
 parisons of the cost of implements in the West and 
 in the East, or in other countries, consists in a neglect 
 of the fact that larger and better machines are used 
 on the prairies than elsewhere. Six- and seven-foot 
 binders are common in Saskatchewan, but are un- 
 known even in Ontario and much more so in 
 England." f 
 
 * April, 1910. 
 
 t " Under date of June 9, 1909, the firm of John Wilder, Yield 
 Hall Foundry, Reading, England, over the signature of John Wilder, 
 offers as follows : 
 
 Massey Harris, 6-ft. cut, ^£^'29 ($140). 
 McCormick, 6-ft. cut, ^£^25 ($121). 
 Deering, 6-ft. cut, ;^26 ($126). 
 " These figures are with two knives and large sheaf carrier, 
 and were obtained with the understanding that we could use 
 them as we saw fit. 
 
 " J. and R. Wallace, Castle Douglas, Dumfriesshire, Scotland, 
 were asked to quote on 6-ft., 7-ft. and 8-ft. cuts, but said they 
 never heard of 7-ft. and 8-ft. cuts ; 6-ft. cuts were handled in 
 some places, but they only handled 5-ft. cuts, quoted as over the 
 signature of R. Wallace. 
 
 Massey Harris, ;i(J"26 los. (^127). 
 Deering and McCormick, ^25 ($121). 
 " This offer was retail price on June 17, 1909, also with two 
 knives and large sheaf carrier. These are the figures quoted at 
 Prince Albert, and will show that we did not quote small machines 
 over there against the large ones used in the West." — " Price of 
 Binders," J. A. Murray, Grain Growers' Guide, July 27, 1910.
 
 I02 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 "It argues no discrimination," continued Indus- 
 trial Canada, "that the Enghsh farmer is charged 
 less for his four-foot implement than the Western 
 farmer for his implement of almost double the size. 
 So, too, better and stronger ploughs are necessary 
 for the extensive operations carried on on the big 
 farms of Canada than in the cultivated gardens of 
 England ; and, therefore, what in some cases may- 
 look like a lower price is explained by a difference 
 in quality. But we have the assurance of those who 
 are selling implements both in Canada and in Great 
 Britain that, grade for grade, Canadian farmers get 
 the better price." 
 
 "There ought not," wrote Mr. Waddie,* "to be 
 any antagonism between the manufacturer and the 
 farmer. f The two are as inseparable as capital and 
 labour, and are as interdependent. In every form 
 of legislation some individual must feel he is a 
 sufferer, just as majority rule is irksome to the 
 minority. But the tariff question is national, and 
 must be looked at from that standpoint, and taken 
 outside of politics and personal consideration. It is 
 stated that prices at which implements are sold out- 
 side the Dominion by Canadian manufacturers is a 
 sore point with the farmers. This is simply because 
 the farmer has not been made familiar with the 
 reasons for such a state of affairs, nor with the benefits 
 which he indirectly derives from such outside markets. 
 The rebate clause enables the Canadian manufacturer 
 to compete in the export business, and to give em- 
 ployment in the Dominion to large numbers of 
 workers who would otherwise be forced to look for 
 employment elsewhere. Again, the seasons differ in 
 these other countries, thus making the production of 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, Oct. 12, 1910. 
 
 t " The Canadian farmer, with his respectable bank account, 
 constitutes our most interesting and most promising sales problem." 
 — Industrial Canada, August, 19 10.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 103 
 
 the Canadian mills more steady and the shipments 
 and sales extend over the whole twelve months. This 
 cheapens the cost of production on implements for 
 home use, and Canadian users get the benefit, in 
 addition to getting the larger home market due to the 
 population employed on export manufacturing." 
 
 The replies which have been quoted were not from 
 inside the farm implement industry ; hence the im- 
 portance of the third of the series — that from Senator 
 Jones, who has been engaged in the industry at 
 Brantford and Toronto since 1873. It was written 
 to Mr. John Evans, of Nutana, Saskatchewan, who 
 in 1910 was prominent in the movement on the plat- 
 form and in the press for equality as to price of 
 agricultural machinery as between Canadian and 
 British farmers using machinery from the same 
 factories in Ontario. 
 
 The portions of the letter * essential to the con- 
 troversy are as follows : 
 
 You selected the lowest price at which Canadian imple- 
 ments are sold in any foreign country, and compared it 
 with the highest price at which they are sold at home, 
 and, by this method, endeavoured to create an impression 
 that Canadian makers secure higher prices at home than 
 abroad. 
 
 The average of the prices at which a 6-ft. binder and 
 sheaf carrier is sold by the Massey Harris Company, in 
 England, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, 
 Roumania, Euroi^ean Russia, Siberian Russia, Italy, Spain, 
 Algeria, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand and Aus- 
 tralia, is over 15 per cent, higher than the average of the 
 prices obtained in all Canada, and in no one of the 
 countries enumerated, except England, is the price as low 
 as the highest price in any part of Canada. In England 
 the price is higher than in Ontario, Quebec or the Maritime 
 Provinces, and is practically the same as the average price 
 over Canada, notwithstanding the fact that the freight cost 
 of delivering a binder in England is only half what it 
 
 * Graift Growers'' Guide, Oct. ig, 1910.
 
 104 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 costs to North-Western Canada, and, if the difference in 
 freight is taken into account, the average Canadian price 
 is even less than in England. 
 
 In every other country named, the highest price in any 
 portion of Canada is less than the lowest in any of the 
 countries mentioned. I do not think that in a discussion 
 of this question England should be the country selected 
 for comparison. The farmers of England practically do 
 not compete in the wheat markets of the world with 
 Canadian farmers, and the number of binders sold in 
 England is very small compared with the number sold in 
 France, Germany, Russia, Argentina, Australia and Canada. 
 Therefore, if you want information of value to lay before 
 the Grain Growers' Association, write to these other coun- 
 tries, which are Canada's competitors in the wheat markets 
 of the world and learn from them the price of a 6-ft. 
 binder and carrier, and remember, further, that in three 
 of the countries I have just mentioned binders are imported 
 entirely free from duty. 
 
 In a consideration of these prices also, it must be 
 borne in mind that the difference in freight rates is very 
 considerable. The freight (in carload lots) on a 6-ft. binder 
 and carrier, from Toronto to Liverpool and London, averages 
 $8.40. The average rate on a 6-ft. binder and carrier to 
 Saskatoon (carload lots) is $16.30.* These are differences 
 that must be taken into consideration when considering 
 the prices in various provinces of Canada. 
 
 You further state in your letter : 
 
 " It also goes to show that the Canadian manu- 
 facturers enjoy a privilege such as is given in no 
 other country of the world." 
 
 This statement, if it means anything, means that higher 
 duties are placed upon implements entering Canada than 
 are placed upon implements entering into any other country. 
 The duty on binders, mowers and reapers into Canada is 
 17K P^r cent. Higher duties — much higher— are imposed 
 in Austria, Hungary, Italy, Roumania and Algeria, and 
 they are approximately as high in several other countries, 
 including France and the United States. In the United 
 States the duty has been double, until very recently, what 
 it now is in Canada. At present on these machines the 
 
 * Distance by rail from Toronto to Saskatoon is 1,565 miles.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 105 
 
 duty there is 15 per cent, on the complete machine, but 
 on parts thereof 45 per cent. ; so that your statement about 
 this is made, as are apparently most of your other state- 
 ments, without knowledge of or regard to facts. 
 
 You say further : 
 
 " It also goes to show that Canadian manufacturers 
 enjoy a privilege such as is given in no other 
 country in the world, and that having a monopoly 
 of the home market (through high protection) are 
 sweating the home consumer to such an extent as is 
 unbearable, while abroad you can adjust your prices 
 to compete against all that come. High protection 
 is legalised robbery, and under it you and the other 
 implement makers of Canada have extorted millions 
 of dollars from agriculturists." 
 Now what are the facts ? Canada is primarily an 
 agricultural country. It has a very large acreage under 
 cultivation for the number of agriculturists. Rapid ex- 
 pansion and the fact that land can be had for the home- 
 steading has made farm labourers very scarce, and it is 
 not too much to say that were it not for the rapid 
 improvement in farm implements during the last thirty 
 years the development of Canada, and especially of Western 
 Canada, would of necessity have been much slower than 
 it has been, and profitable farming would have been very 
 difficult. 
 
 The Massey Harris Company and other companies in 
 this line of business have not lain down behind the tariff, 
 but have been progressive and enterprising, and have been 
 able gradually to become large factors in the trade of 
 other countries. This fact has been of immense advantage 
 not only to Canada generally, through the employment of 
 a large number of men and the bringing of many millions 
 of money annually into this country from various foreign 
 countries, but it has also been of the greatest possible 
 benefit to the farmers of Canada through consequent re- 
 duction of the cost of implements. The largely increased 
 output afforded by the foreign business has enabled the 
 manufacturers to make implements for Canadians cheaper 
 than would otherwise be possible, thereby giving to Cana- 
 dian farmers not only better but also cheaper implements
 
 io6 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 (excepting the United States) than in any other grain-growing 
 country in the world. 
 
 I say, without hesitation, that implements are cheaper 
 in Canada to-day because of the local industries that have 
 heretofore been established in Canada because of very high 
 tariffs, than would have been the case under a low tariff 
 or free trade, without local industries and dependent only 
 upon importing implements made in foreign countries. 
 The history of business throughout the world proves that 
 local competition between manufacturers is the factor that 
 secures the lowest price to the consumer. I am not now, 
 nor have I ever been, a high tariff advocate, but I am 
 bound to say that, from my intimate knowledge of the 
 business in Canada, it must be admitted that the very 
 high duties placed upon implements many years since 
 resulted in the establishment of a large number of manu- 
 facturers in Canada for the purpose of building binders, 
 mowers, etc. At one time, influenced by the high duty, 
 over thirty Canadian factories came quickly into existence 
 and were turning out these implements. The competition 
 was, however, so keen that they as quickly began to fail 
 and diminish in number, and it was not very long after 
 until but four or five were left in the business. In recent 
 years, I believe, there have been but three of the original 
 Canadian makers continuing. There has come into Canada, 
 however, one large institution in this particular line, viz. 
 the International Harvester Company, who have spent 
 millions in plant and equipment in Canada, and other large 
 foreign makers are building and preparing to manufacture 
 here in Canada. 
 
 Surely if in a country so young as Canada in any line 
 of manufacturing industries we have reached a position 
 where we can furnish to the people of our own country 
 our own manufactures equal to and better than that of 
 any other country in the world and as cheap, and cheaper, 
 than the average price in all other countries in the world, 
 we have done reasonably well. Further, if we can go into 
 other countries and build up a large business, enabling us 
 to employ thousands of men in Canada who otherwise would 
 not be employed . . . should not those who have done 
 something towards accomplishing this be entitled to at least 
 receive fair treatment from their own fellow countrymen ? 
 
 There were times when the business could fairly be said
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 107 
 
 to be highly protected, but that cannot be said of the 
 present or the past fifteen years. The tariff on implements, 
 naturally and properly, because of the predominating in- 
 terests of the farmers of Canada, has been more than any 
 other section of the tariff under frequent, almost continuous, 
 discussion, and sometimes, I believe, for the reason that 
 it has been politically advantageous for politicians to show 
 their special interest in the farming community. The tariff 
 on implements has been reduced at each revision of the 
 general tariff : first, from 35 per cent, down to 20 per 
 cent, in 1894, and later, on binders, mowers and reapers, 
 from 20 per cent, down to iyj4 per cent. The present rate 
 is surely not higher than a revenue basis. 
 
 In Canada, indirect taxation by customs duties has been 
 accepted by the people as the better means of producing 
 the necessary revenue. 
 
 If revenue is to be produced by customs duties, surely 
 it is wise to so arrange these duties, within reason, on 
 such articles as will afford some measure of advantage to 
 existing industries, and industries that should, with great 
 advantage, grow up in our own country. 
 
 Nothing could better illustrate the inevitable 
 tendency of protection to set one class of the com- 
 munity against another — a small class entrenched in 
 privilege against an enormously larger class delivered 
 into the hands of the privileged — than this conflict, 
 waged now for thirty years, between the manufac- 
 turers of agricultural implements in three or four 
 Ontario cities and the farmers of the whole Dominion. 
 The privileged interests will not, or cannot, appreciate 
 the point of view of the men on whom they levy to 
 the full their statutory toll, and whose burdens are 
 thereby increased. How little the New Feudalism 
 realises that by its exactions it adds to the burdens 
 of seven millions of Canadians, or, if realising, how 
 little it cares, is suggested by a paragraph in Indus- 
 trial Canada, published at the time this conflict 
 between the grain growers of the prairie provinces
 
 io8 THE RF.VOLT IN CANADA 
 
 and the implement manufacturers was beginning to 
 command the attention of the whole of the Dominion. 
 "Considering that we Canadians," reads this 
 paragraph in the journal of the New Feudalism, 
 "have attained the good life to a greater degree than 
 most other nations, that our people of all classes 
 are sharing in a uniform prosperity, that we have 
 approached so near to a true democracy, where oppor- 
 tunities and rewards are fairly distributed, and where 
 the citizens have it within their power to live in 
 comfort and comparative independence, why should 
 there arise a desire to change existing economic 
 conditions upon which all these are based ? " * 
 
 THE NEW FEUDALISM 
 
 The reorganised Canadian Manufacturers' Association is like a 
 young giant ignorant of its own power. By the exercise of these 
 powers it could, if it chose, bring several millions of people to 
 the verge of starvation, or paralyse the industry of the whole 
 Dominion. From the half-hearted 132 who comprised the total 
 membership of the Association in 1899 (the year of reorganisation) 
 it has grown with such strides that now in 1910 the members 
 number more than 2,500. — Mr. G. M. Murray, Secretary, Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association, at Winnipeg, Feb. 9, 19 10. 
 
 The manufacturers exercise great political power, even within 
 the Liberal party. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has to work with them 
 as far as may be. If he did not bend to them they might 
 break him. Their organisation pretends to be non-political ; but, 
 as a matter of fact, it exists to extort from this party or from 
 that the utmost measure of protection against British and other 
 competition that the people of Canada will bear, and they will 
 bear a good deal, so long as agriculture is prospering. — " Canada : 
 The New Nation " (1906), H. R. Whates, p. 246. 
 
 It is the first duty of Liberals to guard the rights of the 
 masses against the organised aggression and the law-protected 
 privileges of the few. If Liberals do not stand for the funda- 
 mental principle of democracy against organised and corporate 
 attack on the one hand, and against the misguidance of the mob 
 spirit on the other, they do not stand true to Liberalism. Con- 
 ditions may be against them, as in Canada the constitutional 
 compacts favour some ecclesiastical class privileges, but if Liberals 
 
 * Industrial Canada, April, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 109 
 
 turn their backs on their ideals and forswear their principles 
 they have parted company with Liberalism. — Globe, Toronto, 
 Feb. 2, 1905. 
 
 The Illinois Railroad and Warehouse Commission, after a patient 
 hearing, has ordered a reduction of 50 per cent, in express rates 
 within that state. In January and June, 1909, the Canadian 
 Railway Commission heard evidence regarding express rates in 
 this country. That evidence showed that our express companies 
 had been collecting rates for carrying fruit, etc., equal to the 
 amount received by growers from producing it, and at the same 
 time making profits for themselves of 26 per cent, to 100 per 
 cent. We are still waiting for the judgment of the Canadian 
 Commission on the case presented. — Sun, Toronto, Sept. 21, 1910. 
 
 The grain growers of the West have protested vigorously to 
 the Railway Commission at the number of cattle killed on the 
 railroads. Over 400 head, they state, have been killed this year. 
 They want better fencing and more adequate cattle guards. ** I 
 don't doubt your statement," replied Mr. Justice Mabee, chairman 
 of the Commission, to a farmer's criticism ; " the railways of 
 this country, if they continue, will drive the Government to drastic, 
 extreme and unreasonable legislation. They will not live up to 
 the laws of the present, reasonable though they may be, and the 
 people will soon have the opinion that there is no law for the 
 railways." — Winnipeg dispatch to Witness, Montreal, Sept. 24, 1910. 
 The complaints regarding prairie fires in and around Big Valley, 
 on the line of the Canadian Northern Railway, were then heard. 
 The complaints were made by the Attorney-General's department, 
 and Mr. Mabee asked why the Department of Justice did not 
 take steps in a law court about the matter. " They've broken 
 the law," he said. " We're not a criminal court." Further, the 
 chairman said that he could not make any order for fire guards 
 as there had been no plans of the railway filed with the board, 
 and therefore the line had not been approved. As far as the 
 board knew there was no line there. " I never saw such a mess 
 as the C.N.R. are getting things in just now. It is a wonder 
 that the whole bunch of you were not locked up long ago," 
 said Mr. Mabee. " You have no right to build under a provincial 
 charter as you say you are doing." — Report of proceedings before 
 Dominion Board of Railway Commissioners at Edmonton, Alberta. — 
 Grain Growers'' Guide, Sept. 28, 1910. 
 
 The harm is done so far as the past is concerned, but there 
 is time to warn those concerned that the public is sick of being 
 bled by vampires. ... If such shameless stock-watering as we 
 have seen of late, accomplished and projected, is not immediately 
 made impossible by our bankers and by the influence of our Manu- 
 facturers' Association, our Boards of Trade and others concerned, 
 not only will Free Trade sentiment sweep the country within a
 
 no THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 very few years, but in the reaction against the daylight robbery 
 of some of the capitalistic barons, legislation of a distinctly 
 fettering kind may be fastened on the country to its disadvantage. 
 — Witness, Montreal, Oct. 19, 1910. 
 
 In Canada there is as yet none of the terrible poverty, and 
 only the beginning of the ruling plutocracy. But at the present 
 rate twenty-five years will see the wealth of Canada controlled by 
 one hundred men, and the most of it by a score. It is coming 
 with tremendous speed, and then only one thing will prevent 
 hopeless misery for the poorer classes. That will be a revolution 
 that will shake Canada to its very foundations. — Grain Growers' 
 Guide, Winnipeg, Sept. 28, 1910. 
 
 We venture to say that among the working-class people whom 
 Sir George Doughty addressed at Grimsby there were very few 
 whose surroundings were more wretched and hopeless than those 
 of some of the unskilled labourers of Montreal. — Witness, Montreal, 
 Oct. 25, 1910. 
 
 We are as much in love with Canada as anybody, and as 
 proud of what she has done and is certain to do ; but we should 
 think it criminal to tell ignorant men such tales as those which 
 are told by men of the calibre of Sir George Doughty and Sir 
 William Grantham. With the far higher cost of living here than 
 in England, some of the textile and other operatives have declared 
 that they were better ofl at home, in spite of the higher wages 
 they receive in Canada, and we can vouch for it that some of 
 them are living in as bad, and, in extreme cases, in far worse 
 slum conditions than they did " at home." — Witness, Montreal, 
 Oct. 28, 1910. 
 
 " The most notable tendency of the present time is seen in 
 the growing severance between the Canadian Parliament and the 
 Canadian people." This statement was made last week by Mr. 
 Goldwin Smith during a conversation on present-day events. There 
 is abundance of evidence to support the statement. One proof 
 is found in the personnel of Parliament itself. This is largely 
 made up of men apart from the every-day life of the people. 
 Agriculture, the foundation industry of the country, is almost 
 without representation ; organised labour has but one representative. 
 What should be the great council of the nation promises soon to 
 be made up of professional politicians. — Sun, Toronto, March 23, 
 1910. 
 
 We in Canada pretend that we are living under British in- 
 stitutions. In reality we are not. We are living under the 
 government of an interested class, who find a party in power and 
 keep it there until it becomes too corrupt to be kept any longer, 
 when it seizes upon the other party and corrupts it. — Andrew 
 Macphail, " New Lamps for Old " (1909), p. 117.
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE BIRTH AND FEEDING-BOTTLE STAGE OF AN 
 INFANT INDUSTRY 
 
 " I cannot pass on without expressing a word of appreciation of 
 what the Parliament of Canada has done for the steel industries of 
 the country and, incidentally for this city. Sir Charles Tupper brought 
 in the first Bounty Act, under the previous administration ; but we 
 are indebted to Mr. Fielding for the way in which he has guided 
 and administered the policy of bounties in Parliament. We owe 
 much to him and to his colleagues for sympathy and aid at the 
 time of our great difficulties. In Mr. Murray, your Prime Minister, 
 too, we have had a strong, judicious and helpful friend, because he 
 is concerned in the welfare of this great industry. I have not the 
 slightest doubt that if public affairs had been in the hands of the 
 other political party we should have had the same of their leaders, 
 for we have had sympathy and support from them in the trying times 
 of the past." — Mr. J. H. Plummer, President of the Dominion Iron 
 and Steel Company, Sydney, Sept. 7, 1909. 
 
 " The wheel that creaks the loudest is the wheel that gets the 
 grease." — Mr. P. W. Ellis^ at the Canadian Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation Convention, Vancouver, September, iqio. 
 
 " Thim that the tariff looks after will look after the tariff." — ■ 
 Mr. Dooley. 
 
 The Dominion Iron and Steel Company, which 
 began dumping rails in October, igoS, and continued 
 the policy until October, 1910,* has been described 
 in these pages as an undertaking with more political 
 history than any other industrial enterprise in the 
 English-speaking world. Canada is the only one of 
 the British over-sea Dominions in which politics 
 could be interwoven in the history of any industrial 
 undertaking to the extent to which politics — 
 Dominion, provincial and municipal — are interwoven 
 in the history of the Dominion Steel Company. 
 There could be no parallel to this Cape Breton enter- 
 prise in England, even if in England industry were 
 
 * Cf. " The Dominion Steel Company," Witness, Oct. S, 1910. 
 
 Ill
 
 112 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 leaning on the politicians — if England were under a 
 protectionist system of which bounties were a part; 
 for it is inconceivable that British municipalities 
 would go enormously into debt to bonus industrial 
 undertakings and to grant them loans, or would 
 exempt them from municipal taxation. 
 
 There could be no parallel to the Dominion Iron 
 and Steel Company even in the United States. 
 American industry since 1861 has leaned continuously 
 and heavily on the politicians. The Morrill, the 
 McKinley, the Dingley, and the Payne-Aldrich tariffs 
 — 1 884- 1 909 — are all evidences of this tendency of 
 American industry to lean on the Republican party 
 at Washington. So was the Wilson tariff of 1894-7, 
 although it was the work of a Congress in which 
 the Democrats controlled both the House of Repre- 
 sentatives and the Senate ; while the Payne-Aldrich 
 tariff of 1909, alleged by its authors and by President 
 Taft to have been a revision in the interests of the 
 consumer, is a monument of the abounding success 
 with which American industry was able to lean on 
 the stand-patters of the Republican party.* 
 
 Leaning with tremendous weight on the politicians 
 as American industry does, there is not in the history 
 of the United States a single case in which boun- 
 ties were paid to an industrial undertaking; nor is it 
 possible to find a case in which an industry was aided 
 by a state government and by a municipality as well 
 as by protection in the tariff. The Dominion Iron 
 and Steel Company has had bestowed on it direct 
 and indirect largesse by the Dominion Government. 
 It has had bounties and drawbacks on exports to the 
 
 * " A stand-patter is a Republican who believes in the traditions 
 and principles of his party — to wit, the highest measure of pro- 
 tection and special privileges to all who will make liberal con- 
 tributions to the campaign fund. The insurgent is a Republican 
 who is becoming weary of Republicanism." — Sun, Baltimore, Oct. 
 II, 1910,
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 113 
 
 amount of $7,500,000. It has had numerous other 
 concessions from Ottawa. It has had indirect 
 largesse from the Government of Nova Scotia, and 
 also both direct and indirect largesse from the muni- 
 cipality of Sydney, within whose area its furnaces and 
 rolling mills have come into existence since 1899. 
 
 It would need a monograph to tell in detail the 
 political history of the Dominion Iron and Steel Com- 
 pany. Quite a book would be required to follow the 
 history at Ottawa, Halifax and Sydney from the 
 second rearrangement and extension of the bounty 
 system by the Laurier Government in 1899 * to the 
 end of the bounty system in 1910. Ample material 
 for such a volume is offering in the Hansards of the 
 Dominion Parliament and of the Legislature of Nova 
 Scotia, and in the reports of the proceedings of the 
 city council of Sydney. The story would show the 
 political power of the New Feudalism in Canada^ and 
 the eagerness with which the politicians — Dominion, 
 provincial and municipal — obey its behests. A 
 detailed political history of the Dominion Company 
 would be a serviceable contribution to political 
 science. Here, however, only the main outlines can 
 be given, and the brief narrative will be clearer and 
 its significance better understood if I state first the 
 governmental concessions made at promotion stage, 
 and then the concessions made after the company had 
 been floated — after the work of the promoters was at 
 an end, and the coal-washers, coke-ovens, furnaces 
 and mills at Sydney were at work, and the holders of 
 the thirty-five million dollars of bonds and preferred 
 and common stock were receiving interest or looking 
 for dividends on their investments. 
 
 The promoters of the company were three finan- 
 ciers from Boston and New York — men who, in 1893, 
 
 * The first extension was in June, 1897 i^^ ''"d 61 V. c. 6), and 
 the second in August, 1S99 (62 and 63 V. c. 8). 
 I
 
 114 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 had floated the Dominion Coal Company, which then 
 owned mines in the neighbourhood of Sydney, a 
 company which, after much trouble in the law courts, 
 was merged with the Dominion Iron and Steel Com- 
 pany in 1910. These promoters, in 1898, secured 
 options on ore lands at Belle Island, Newfoundland, 
 and with their raw material secured, they began 
 work at Ottawa, Halifax and at Sydney, where 
 it had been determined, in 1898, that the new plant 
 should be established. 
 
 A Liberal Government; with Mr. W. S. Fielding 
 as Premier, was in power at Halifax when the 
 Dominion Coal Company obtained its charter in 
 1893. In 1896, when Mr. Fielding became Minister 
 of Finance in the Laurier Government, Mr. G. H. 
 Murray succeeded him as Premier and Provincial 
 Secretary of Nova Scotia, and it was a Liberal 
 Government, with Mr. Murray at its head, that made 
 terms with the promoters of the Dominion Iron and 
 Steel Company. 
 
 From the Government at Halifax, in 1899, the 
 promoters secured a charter — amended at their request 
 in 1901 — by which and by concurrent legislation 
 seven important concessions were made : (i) The com- 
 pany was given the right of eminent domain ; (2) It 
 was freed from all provincial and county taxation ; 
 (3) It was given power to pay dividends on preferred 
 stock while the plant at Sydney was under construc- 
 tion ; (4) The law of Nova Scotia regulating limited 
 liability companies was relaxed so as to make it legal 
 for American citizens and other non-British subjects 
 to be of the directorate ; (5) It was enacted that a 
 director should not be disqualified from contracting 
 with the company — a clause which was introduced 
 owing to the close relations of the promoters with 
 the Dominion Coal Company, from which the Iron 
 and Steel Company was to obtain its fuel ; (6) The
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 115 
 
 city of Sydney was empowered to grant a bonus to 
 the company and free its plant from municipal taxa- 
 tion ; and (7) The mining code was amended to pro- 
 vide that the royalty payable into the Provincial 
 Treasury on all coal obtained from the Dominion 
 Coal Company and used at the steel plant, or by 
 steamers owned or chartered by the company for the 
 conveyance of ore or of the products of the plant, 
 should be 6^{ cents a ton instead of i2}4 cents, the 
 royalty paid on coal for domestic and export trade. 
 
 Sydney, to-day, after ten years of prosperity due 
 to the Iron and Steel Company, has a population of 
 14,000, with property, exclusive of that of the steel 
 company and of two other companies which use the 
 by-products of the steel plant, assessed for municipal 
 taxation at $5,500,000.* In 1898-99 its population 
 was not more than 2,500. It was then a market town 
 for the farming and mining communities in the 
 country around the harbour. It was also a centre of 
 the fishing industry, and a port of call for tramp 
 steamers needing bunker coal, inward- and outward- 
 bound from Quebec and Montreal. Owners of real 
 estate, store-keepers, local lawyers and politicians 
 were anxious that the steel company should be 
 established there. In view of the fact that the com- 
 pany had to use ore from Belle Island, and fuel from 
 the Dominion Coal Company's mines, and that 
 Sydney was the terminus of the Intercolonial Rail- 
 way, and that it possesses a magnificent harbour, 
 it was obvious that the plant must be established 
 there. But the promoters discussed other locations; 
 and to secure the prize for Sydney the municipality 
 purchased and gave to the promoters as a free gift 
 the site on the harbour which is now covered by the 
 furnaces and rolling-mills. For the purchase of this 
 
 *" Facts about Sydney," Advertising Folder of the Sydney Daily 
 Post.
 
 ii6 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 site, which had previously been undeveloped farm 
 land, the city raised a loan of $370,000, and in 
 addition it exempted the steel plant from municipal 
 taxation for thirty years. 
 
 Loans and bonuses by municipalities to promoters 
 of industrial undertakings are nearly as old as the 
 National Policy. So are tax exemptions or low 
 assessments fixed for long periods on manufacturing 
 plants. Municipal bonuses to the amount of $135,000 
 helped to the establishment of the iron and steel plant 
 at Hamilton in 1895. There was a bonus of $50,000 
 and exemption from all but nominal municipal taxa- 
 tion when the Canada Iron Furnace Company in- 
 stalled its equipment at Midland in 1900. Similar 
 municipal largesse was bestowed at Sault Ste. Marie 
 when a rail plant was established there in 1900, and 
 at Port Arthur when the Atikokan Iron Company 
 erected a furnace at this Lake Superior port in 1907. 
 Hundreds of examples of municipal largesse are to 
 be found in the industrial history of Ontario. But no 
 city anywhere in Canada ever localised the National 
 Policy at such lavish expense as did the Cape Breton 
 city of Sydney in 1898-99, when the promoters of the 
 Dominion Iron and Steel Company were on the hunt 
 for politicians — national, provincial and municipal — 
 on whom they could hope to lean with success. 
 
 At this stage, after the concessions at Halifax 
 and Sydney, the aid of the Dominion Government 
 became essential if bounties from the Treasury at 
 Ottawa were to be available for the Sydney enter- 
 prise. The then existing bounty law, as it had been 
 enacted in June, 1897, was to expire in April, 1902. 
 Just when the promoters began work at Ottawa is not 
 ascertainable; but this much is certain : at the urging 
 of these interests, in association with certain financial 
 and political interests which have their headquarters 
 at Halifax, the Laurier Government decided not to
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 117 
 
 wait until 1901 or 1902 to renew tlie law of 1S97, but 
 to re-enact and extend it in 1899, so as to give the 
 promoters of the Dominion Company an assurance 
 that bounties would be forthcoming for at least six 
 years after the first blast furnace at Sydney could be 
 put on the bounty list at Ottawa. 
 
 Under the law of 1894— the l^st bounty enactment 
 passed by the Conservative Government — bounties 
 were payable only on pig-iron made from Canadian 
 ore. The rate was $2 a ton. The Laurier Govern- 
 ment, when it annexed this feature of the National 
 Policy in 1897, greatly extended it. The first bounty 
 law of the Liberal Government provided that bounties 
 should be paid on pig-iron, steel ingots and puddled- 
 iron bars. Under the law of 1894 bounties were paid 
 only on pig-iron from Canadian ore, steel billets and 
 puddled bars. Ingots were not included, because in 
 1894 there was no equipment in Canada for carrying 
 pig-metal to the ingot stage of the process of steel 
 manufacture.* 
 
 In 1897 promoters at Hamilton, closely associated 
 politically with the Liberal party, were interested in 
 the iron and steel plants there, to which the city had 
 given bonuses to the amount of $135,000; and by the 
 first bounty act in the National Policy code of the 
 Laurier Government there was provision for the pay- 
 ment of $3 a ton on "steel ingots manufactured from 
 ingredients of which not less than 50 per cent, of the 
 weight thereof consists of pig-iron made in Canada." 
 
 To meet the needs of the promoters of the 
 Dominion Iron and Steel Company, this law of 1897 
 was not, as has been stated, permitted to run its 
 
 * Steel ingots were first made in Canada in 1S99, at the plant of 
 the Hamilton Steel and Iron Company. Of the 3135,000 paid in 
 bonuses by the City of Hamilton, under an Act passed by the Pro- 
 vincial Legislature of Ontario in 1895 (58-9 V. c. 67), $60,000 was 
 paid in respect of the plant at which these first " made in Canada " 
 ingots were produced.
 
 ii8 
 
 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 course until April, 1902. It was so amended, in 
 August, 1899, as to authorise bounties on pig-iron 
 from imported ore — ore from Belle Island, Newfound- 
 land, where the Dominion Steel Company and, later, 
 the Nova Scotia Steel Company, which has a furnace 
 at North Sydney, obtain their supplies, and from the 
 Lake Superior country in Minnesota, whence the 
 Hamilton, Midland and Sault Ste. Marie furnaces 
 draw most of their raw material. Heretofore bounty 
 Acts had been for four years only. By the amended 
 Act of 1899 bounties were to be paid until 1907. The 
 net result of this legislation of 1899, enacted solely 
 to help the promotion and floating of the Dominion 
 Iron and Steel Company, was that from this change 
 in the law until June 30, 1907, the bounty rates 
 were : 
 
 ON PIG-IRON 
 
 
 From 
 
 From 
 
 On Steel 
 
 
 Native Ore 
 
 Foreign Ore 
 
 Ingots 
 
 August, 1899 to 1 
 April 21, 1902 1 
 
 $3-00 
 
 $2-oo 
 
 $3-00 
 
 April 21, 1902 to) 
 
 2-70 
 
 i-8o 
 
 270 
 
 July I, 1903 j 
 
 
 
 
 1904 
 
 2-25 
 
 1-50 
 
 2-25 
 
 1905 
 
 1-65 
 
 IIO 
 
 1-65 
 
 1906 
 
 1-05 
 
 •70 
 
 1-05 
 
 1907 
 
 •60 
 
 •40 
 
 •60 
 
 There were no changes in the tariff in 1899 
 especially in the interest of the Dominion Iron and 
 Steel Company. Tariff changes for the Sydney enter- 
 prise did not begin until 1903. Protective duties for 
 the iron and steel industry from 1899 to 1903 were 
 those of the tariff of 1897. Pig-iron was protected by 
 a duty of $2.50 a ton in the general tariff, and $1.66^ 
 under the British preference. Steel ingots, blooms, 
 and billets were dutiable in the general tariff at $2 
 a ton, and $i-33K under the preference. Steel rails
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 119 
 
 were on the free list. There was also a duty of $1 
 a ton on scrap iron. On ferro-silicon, ferro-man- 
 ganese and on spiegeleisen there was an ad valorem 
 duty of 5 per cent. These duties must be kept in 
 mind, for it was in connection with them that draw- 
 backs were paid to the Dominion Iron and Steel Com- 
 pany between 1901 and 1910, when it was exporting 
 pig-iron and ingots and dumping steel rails. 
 
 The promoters of the Dominion Iron and Steel 
 Company, headed by the financier from Boston, had 
 secured all these Government favours from Ottawa, 
 Halifax and Sydney before the prospectus of the new 
 company was issued from Montreal in October, 1899; 
 and in their appeal for subscriptions to the preferred 
 and common stock, it was stated that under the law 
 of 1899 the directors estimated that the plant at 
 Sydney would earn $8,095,000 in bounties before the 
 law expired in June, 1907.* 
 
 The industry at Sydney continued to lean with 
 increasing weight on the politicians at Ottawa after 
 the company was floated and the plant gradually got 
 to work. To realise the political significance and the 
 economic value of the concessions made by the 
 Dominion Government between 1899 and 1907, when 
 the bounty enactment of 1899 was renewed, and 
 bounties continued until the end of 1910, it is neces- 
 sary to know a little about the plant at Sydney and 
 its output. The equipment in service in the closing 
 months of 1910 comprises coal-washing machinery, 
 by-product coke ovens, four blast furnaces (with an 
 aggregate capacity of 1,000 tons a day), ten open- 
 hearth furnaces (of a combined capacity of 800 tons 
 a day), two Bessemer converters, a continuous rail 
 mill, and a continuous wire-rod mill. The products 
 put on the market since 1901 have been pig-iron, 
 steel ingots, billets, wire rods and steel rails. 
 
 The plant is an admirable one of its type and 
 
 *Cf. House of Commons Debates, March 8, 1900.
 
 120 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 capacity. The movement of material — raw, partly 
 manufactured, and finished — all the way from the 
 well-equipped ore docks, at which steamers from 
 Belle Island discharge cargo, to the point at the ex- 
 treme end of the plant at which rails and wire rods 
 are shipped to their destination, is exhilarating to a 
 man who can become enthusiastic over steel-plant 
 economy. The plant is so well-ordered, usually so 
 admirably maintained, and so modern in the details 
 of its equipment, particularl}^ as regards labour-saving 
 machinery, that one is apt to forget, when at Sydney, 
 that all these furnaces and the two rolling-mills lean 
 so heavily and so continuously on politicians at 
 Ottawa, most of whom could not distinguish a blast 
 furnace from a brewery, and who, consequently, 
 when tariffs are being revised or bounty laws re- 
 enacted, must rely on the exploiter, or on the expert 
 who is associated with the exploiters of tariffs and 
 bounties. 
 
 The plant was installed on plans made by Mr. 
 Julian Kennedy, of Pittsburgh, famous wherever iron 
 and steel are produced as a designer of steel works. 
 Save for a pig-lifting and breaking machine from 
 Workington, and for ingot moulds and firebricks 
 imported from England, all the equipment was from 
 the United States. The first shipment of structural 
 steel for the new plant left Philadelphia on 
 November 25, 1899. The first blast furnace was at 
 work in February, 1901 ; the third was blown in at 
 the end of October of the same year. By April, 1901, 
 pig-iron from Sydney was being exported to War- 
 rington and Glasgow.* Early in 1902 the open-hearth 
 
 * " Canada is now an exporter of steel, and is even sending 
 rails to Australia. Now this raises a grave question. Is it right 
 from an Imperial point of view that Canada should grant bounties 
 on the production of material exported in competition with the 
 Mother Country? Is it right that bountied Canadian iron should 
 be shipped even to the Mother Country if it is to be there sold 
 against British iron? In the case of Canadian pig-iron sent over 
 here some few years ago it was understood that the bounties
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 121 
 
 furnaces were in service ; and thereafter, until the 
 billet mill was at work, steel ingots were shipped to 
 the Mersey and the Clyde. The wire rod mill was 
 at work by the end of 1903. By June, 1904, the rail 
 mill was in service, and the plant at Sydney thereby 
 became a unit. 
 
 A knowledge of these dates is essential to an 
 understanding of the additional concessions which 
 were made to the Sydney enterprise between the ex- 
 tension of the bounty system in 1899 and the second 
 revision of the tariff by the Laurier Government in 
 the session of 1906-7, when the bounties were again 
 continued, this time to December 31, 1910. 
 
 Before these more recent concessions are enumer- 
 ated, note must be taken of an episode in the House 
 of Commons in 1897 — an episode which occurred 
 when the resolutions on which the bounties bill was 
 based were introduced by Mr. Fielding. As these 
 resolutions were originally framed there was a pro- 
 vision that in the event of pig-iron and steel ingots 
 being exported, the Government might, by order- 
 in-council, impose an export duty equivalent to the 
 amount which had been paid in bounties. Emphatic 
 objection was made to this provision by Mr. 
 George E. Foster, who, as Minister of Finance, was 
 the author of the tariff of 1894, ^^^ of the bounty 
 Act of that year, the last enactments in the National 
 Policy code of the Conservatives. 
 
 "In the interest of Canadian labour and Canadian 
 industrial development," Mr. Foster urged that the 
 bounty should be paid alike on pig-iron and steel 
 ingots used in the Dominion or shipped abroad. Mr. 
 Fielding answered that if there were no export duties, 
 Canada, by its bounty system, would attack the in- 
 dustries of the country to which its iron and steel 
 
 were either not allowed or were rebated ; but what of the exports 
 of rails and other steel products? " — Herald, Glasgow, Aug. 5, 
 1909.
 
 122 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 were sent. Mr. Foster, however, pressed the Govern- 
 ment to treat all iron and steel alike — not to concern 
 itself as to where Canadian iron and steel manufac- 
 turers found their market, but to legislate to give an 
 impetus to Canadian enterprise and to the foreign 
 trade of the Dominion.* The Laurier Government 
 had a majority of thirty-four in the House of 
 Commons. f Had Mr. Foster put his plea in the 
 form of an amendment, it could easily have been 
 voted down by the Government. But the Laurier 
 Cabinet, from the time it came into power in 1896, 
 has always been close to the iron and steel interests 
 of Hamilton and the Sydneys, or, rather, these in- 
 terests have always been close to the Government; 
 and the upshot of Mr. Foster's intervention was an 
 announcement by Mr. Fielding the following day, J 
 that he had abandoned the proposal to put an export 
 duty on pig-iron and steel ingots on which bounties 
 had been paid. 
 
 As a result of the concession so willingly made 
 in 1897, pig-iron and ingots shipped from Sydney 
 to Great Britain, billets exported to locomotive 
 factories and plate mills in the United States, § and 
 steel rails exported in 1908-1910 to England, India, 
 Australia and Mexico, earned for the Dominion Iron 
 and Steel Company part of the seven and a half 
 million dollars of bounties which accrued to it be- 
 tween February, 1901, and December 31, 1910, when 
 the bounty system came to an end. 
 
 The first of the new concessions of 1900- 1907 to 
 the Sydney company was made in July, 1900. There 
 was then an amendment to the railway Act,|| which 
 made it a condition that when Dominion subsidies 
 
 * Cf. House of Commons Debates, June 25, xSgy. 
 t Liberals, 103 ; Conservatives, 69. 
 + Cf. House of Commons Debates, June 26, 1897. 
 § Cf. Report of Directors of Dominion Iron and Steel Company, 
 1902. 
 
 II 63-64 V. c. 58.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 123 
 
 were bestowed on a railway undertaking, the com- 
 pany should lay its road with new steel rails " made 
 in Canada," "if the same are procurable upon terms 
 as favourable as other rails can be procured." At 
 this time there was not a single furnace ready for 
 service at Sydney, and no mill for rail-making until 
 June, 1904; nor was there then any mill for rail-mak- 
 ing in Canada. The proviso in the railway Act did 
 not, so far as can be traced, originate with the 
 Dominion Company. It was pressed on an ac- 
 quiescent Minister of Railways and a complaisant 
 Government by an American, who was at that time 
 busy with the promotion of a company, which since 
 1904 has had a rail-making unit at Sault Ste. Marie, 
 Ontario* — a company organised under the laws of 
 New Jersey, and holding the annual meetings of its 
 shareholders at Camden, in that state. f Even such 
 an ardent supporter of Sir John A. Macdonald and 
 the National Policy of 1879-1896 as Sir Charles 
 Tupper opposed this concession of 1900. "It is 
 contrary to freedom," he declared, "that men should 
 be told, ' Go down to my one factory of steel rails 
 and buy your steel rails there, or you shall not 
 get the subsidy that the Government has provided 
 for you.' "J 
 
 Rails in 1900 were on the free list. Even had 
 the projected rail mills at Sydney and Sault Ste. 
 Marie been ready for business, this amendment to 
 the railway Act would have been of little value to 
 them until rails were transferred to the dutiable 
 schedules of the tariff. They were so transferred by 
 order-in-council issued in August, 1904. "The 
 Governor-General-in-Council," being then "satisfied 
 that steel rails of the best quality, suitable for the 
 
 * Cf. Siar, Montreal, April 27, 1901 ; House of Commons Debates, 
 July 12, 1900; " Canadian Annual Review," 1901, 102. 
 t Cf. Witness, Montreal, Oct. 6, 1910. 
 I House of Commons Debates, July 12, 1900.
 
 124 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 use of Canadian railways," were being "manufac- 
 tured in Canada, from steel made in Canada, in 
 sufficient quantity to meet the ordinary requirements 
 of the market," was "pleased to declare" that the 
 provisions of an Act of Parliament passed in 1903* 
 had been satisfied, and to direct "that a duty of 
 seven dollars per ton shall be imposed upon all iron 
 and steel railway bars, or rails in any form for rail- 
 ways, imported into Canada." f 
 
 Seven dollars was the rate of duty on rails from 
 non-British countries. Under the preference the rate 
 was $4,667^, and this duty remained unaltered until 
 1907, when it was reduced to $4.50, the rate at which 
 it stood in 1910, when increases in duty were being 
 urged on behalf of the rail mills to safeguard them 
 from British as well as American competition when 
 bounties on pig-iron and steel ingots should have 
 come to an end. 
 
 The next concession was as directly for the 
 advantage of the Dominion Company as the bounty 
 legislation of 1899. Towards the close of 1903, as 
 has already been stated, the wire rod mill at Sydney 
 was about ready for service. But at this time steel 
 wire rods, such as constitute the raw material for wire- 
 drawing, were on the free list. Farmers all over 
 Canada need large quantities of wire for fencing; 
 and as a general election was due in 1904 it would 
 have been "bad politics" to put wire rods into the 
 dutiable schedule; for, as was the case in July, 1905, 
 when the duty on white lead was increased from 
 5 to 35 per cent.,+ the new duty on wire rods would 
 have been added to the price of wire fencing, nails 
 and staples from end to end of the Dominion within 
 twenty-four hours after the duty had come into 
 operation. 
 
 * T, Ed. VII. c. 15. 
 
 + Cf. Order-in-coiincil, Aup^. 27, 1904. 
 
 + Cf. 4 and 5 Ed. VII. c. 11, s. 4.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 125 
 
 To get over this difficulty, and at the same time 
 to do something for the Sydney mill, then the only 
 rod mill in Canada, an Act* was passed in October, 
 1903, which authorised the Government by order-in- 
 council — practically when it heard from Sydney that 
 the mill was ready for work — to pay bounties of six 
 dollars a ton on rods. It was made a condition of 
 these new bounties that the rods should be manu- 
 factured from steel produced in Canada, from "in- 
 gredients of which not less than 50 per cent, of the 
 weight" consisted of pig-iron made in Canada; and 
 also that bounties should be payable only when "the 
 rods were sold to wire manufacturers, for use in 
 making wire in factories in Canada. "f 
 
 Even more than this extension of the bounty 
 system in 1893— an extension which was solely for 
 the Sydney mill, and an extension that cost the 
 people of Canada a quarter of a million dollars — the 
 anti-dumping Act of 1904 is a testimony to the 
 enormous influence that the Dominion Company and 
 its promoters were able to exert at Ottawa between 
 1897 and 1907. At the revision in 1907 the anti- 
 dumping Act was made general — made to apply to 
 articles on the free list as well as to articles in the 
 dutiable schedules ; and since then this adroit ex- 
 tension of the National Policy has added materially 
 to the protection afforded by the tariff of 1907 
 to the manufacturers of buggies and farm equip- 
 ment. But from August, 1904, until November, 
 1906, the anti-dumping Act was not general in its 
 application. 
 
 * 3 Ed. VII. c. 68. 
 
 t " The rod mill in January rolled 7,300 gross tons of wire rods. 
 But we have, unfortunately, been unable to operate this mill con- 
 tinuously, as the production would e.xceed the consumption in Canada. 
 Your directors are hopeful that before long the Canadian mills will 
 be able to manufacture the wire which is now imported, and thereby 
 provide a market for our full production of rods." — Report of 
 Directors of Dominion Iron and Steel Company, 1906.
 
 126 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Its particular object in 1904 was to safeguard the 
 bounty-propped wire-rod mill at Sydney from com- 
 petition from the United States Steel Corporation, 
 and this fact was as obvious in the terms in which the 
 Act was drawn as though the measure had been 
 entitled an "Act to safeguard the rod mill of the 
 Dominion Iron and Steel Company." As wire rods 
 were on the free list, and as the imposition of a pro- 
 tective duty would have involved higher prices for 
 wire and wire products, and as the Dominion Com- 
 pany was already protected by a bounty of $6 a ton, 
 plus the bounties on the pig-iron and steel from which 
 the rods were rolled, new power was conferred on the 
 Department of Customs for remedying the conditions 
 of which the company complained. The Department 
 was authorised to ascertain whether wire rods were 
 sold for export to Canada at lower prices than the 
 exporting company sold them in the United States. 
 If it were satisfied that this was the case, it had power 
 to charge a special customs duty, not exceeding 
 15 per cent, ad valorem, "notwithstanding that such 
 rods are on the customs free list." * 
 
 "The dumping condition," said Mr. Fielding, 
 when he introduced this new and special legislation 
 of 1904, "is not a permanent condition. It is a tem- 
 porary condition, and therefore it needs only a 
 temporary remedy, that can be applied whenever the 
 necessity for it arises." f This was in June, 1904. 
 But in 1906 the anti-dumping law had served the 
 wire-rod industry so conspicuously well for two and 
 a half years that other protected interests were anxious 
 that it should be extended to strengthen the wall 
 between them and all foreign competitors ; and the 
 Laurier Government, always ready to serve the New 
 Feudalism, was willing to add a tier here and there 
 
 * Cf. 4 Ed. VII. c. II, s. 19. 
 
 t House of Commons Debates, June 7, 1904.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 127 
 
 to the tariff wall, which it had been strengthening in 
 many and various ways since 1897. 
 
 "We introduced a couple of years ago," said Mr. 
 Fielding, in explaining, in November, 1906, why the 
 anti-dumping Act of 1904 was to become a permanent 
 feature in tariff legislation, "a rather novel piece of 
 legislation, known as the dumping clause. There 
 was some friction at the time, as there always w^ill 
 be in the introduction of any new feature of tariff 
 legislation. But the friction has pretty well passed 
 away, and it will be generally admitted that this clause 
 has, on the whole, served its purpose very well. We 
 propose to continue the dumping clause and to 
 enlarge it." * 
 
 Last in this series of concessions between 1899 and 
 1907 in the interest of the Dominion Iron and Steel 
 Company, and also in this instance in the interest 
 of two other Nova Scotia plants and of three charcoal 
 furnaces in Quebec and five iron and steel primary 
 plants in Ontario, was the renewal of the bounty 
 legislation in 1907. The case for this legislation, as 
 it was publicly put forward by the Dominion Iron and 
 Steel Company, was stated in the report of the direc- 
 tors issued with the company's balance sheet for 1906. 
 
 "Your directors," the shareholders were informed, 
 "have applied to the Government for an extension of 
 the bounties. They feel that the company has strong 
 claims for consideration on at least two grounds : 
 first, that the time required to establish this industry, 
 an industry entirely new to Canada, and in a district 
 remote from any industrial centre, has been much pro- 
 longed by unexpected delays and difficulties, so that 
 the company is not in the assured position which it 
 was expected would be reached before the expiration 
 of the bounties; and, secondly, that owing to these 
 delays and difficulties, the company has received, 
 
 * House of Commons Debates, Nov. 29, 1906.
 
 128 
 
 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 and the Government has been called on to pay, much 
 less in the way of bounties than, at the outset, it was 
 expected would be paid to bring about the establish- 
 ment of this industry."* 
 
 To this plea, and to pleas of the other iron and 
 steel manufacturing companies, the Government 
 acceded, and for the four years 1907-10 the bounties 
 on the output of the Sydney plant were : 
 
 
 On Pig- 
 iron jroni 
 Native Ore 
 
 From 
 
 Foreign 
 
 Ore 
 
 Steel 
 Ingots 
 
 Wire Rods 
 
 1907 
 1908 
 
 1909 
 
 I9I0 
 
 $2-IO 
 2-IO 
 170 
 0-90 
 
 $1-10 
 I-IO 
 
 70 
 •40 
 
 $1-65 
 
 1-65 
 
 1-05 
 
 •60 
 
 $6-oo 
 600 
 6-00 
 6-00 
 
 Official figures of payments under the law of 1907 
 for the year and nine months beginning April i, 
 1909, were not available at the time this chapter was 
 written. But assuming that production of pig-iron, 
 ingots and wire rods for this period was at the same 
 rate as for 1908-9, the last year for which the 
 statistics of the Department of Trade and the Auditor- 
 General's reports could be obtained, bounty and 
 drawback payments to the Dominion Iron and 
 Steel Company were — bounties $7,358,136, drawbacks 
 $22,962 — making in the aggregate $7,381,098 as the 
 direct contribution of the people of Canada, under 
 the National Policy of the Laurier Government, to 
 the establishment of the steel industry at Sydney, 
 Cape Breton. 
 
 * For the fiscal years 1901 to 1906 the bounty payments to the 
 company aggregated $3,242,137, and there were during these years 
 drawback payments to the amount of $10,662 in respect of scrap-iron 
 and other imported ingredients, which had been used in the manufac- 
 ture of pig-iron and steel ingots exported from Sydney. Had the 
 expectations of the company, as set out in the prospectus of October, 
 1899, been realised, the bounty-earning capacity from 1901 to 1906 
 would have been $7,770,000.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 129 
 
 
 Drawbacks 
 
 Bounty Pay- 
 ments 
 
 I 900-1 
 
 $9,63274 
 
 $55,287-39 
 
 I90I-2 
 
 203-65 
 
 347,436-39 
 
 1902-3 
 
 
 960,979-63 
 
 1903-4 
 
 
 464,306-10 
 
 1904-5 
 
 825-80 
 
 456,794-63 
 
 1906-7 
 
 
 957.337-00 
 
 1907-8 
 
 12,299-83 
 
 669,042-56 
 
 1908-9 
 
 
 1,228,915-39 
 
 1909-10 
 
 
 1,067,528-92 
 
 I9I0 
 
 
 700,413-65 
 450,094-85 
 
 Total 
 
 $22,962-02 
 
 $7,358,136-51 
 
 Even yet the enumeration of the advantages con- 
 ferred by the Government at Ottawa on the Dominion 
 Iron and Steel Company is incomplete. There is a 
 feeling at Ottawa and Toronto — almost a certainty — 
 that specially low freight-rates — rates that are not 
 remunerative — are conceded to the company on the 
 Intercolonial Railway, the Government line that con- 
 nects Sydney with the mainland of Nova Scotia, with 
 New Brunswick, and also with Montreal, and 
 although statements to this effect have been made in 
 the House of Commons no denial was forthcoming 
 from the Government.* 
 
 There was a long-continued strike at Sydney in 
 1904 against reductions in wages. Several companies 
 of militia, with guns and other death-distributing 
 equipment, were in June and July encamped at the 
 plant, which was then enclosed by a stockade, orna- 
 
 * Cf. House of Commons Debates, April 23, 1907 ; Sun, Toronto, 
 May I, 1907. 
 
 " I am told that the Government — the people of Canada — lose 
 $1.50 a ton on every ton of iron and steel that is shipped by these 
 manufacturers from Sydney to Montreal. If this is true, it is 
 equivalent to $1.50 per ton bounty, because it comes out of the 
 taxes of the people of Canada, as the deficits on the Intercolonial 
 Railway have to be made up out of the Exchequer." — Mr. T. 
 Chisholm, House of Commons, April 27, 1907. 
 
 J
 
 I30 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 mented with barbed wire, which is on the free list. The 
 militia were at Sydney to protect the property of the 
 company, and incidentally to aid it in making an 
 end to the popular delusion among Cape Breton 
 working people that there was any necessary con- 
 nection between tariff protection, bounties, reduced 
 royalties on coal, free sites, and exemption from all 
 taxation except that paid at the customs house, and 
 the rates of wages in the industry on which all this 
 government largesse had been so lavishly bestowed.* 
 
 * " The general strike at the Dominion Steel works, which 
 commenced May 31, is finally closed to-day (July 23) with a decisive 
 victory for the company." — " Canadian Annual Review," 1904. 
 
 " The failure of the strike in 1904 did not end the delusion that 
 protection and bounties mean high wages — did not make the Cape 
 Breton people realise that wages are determined by the number of 
 men seeking jobs, and who must have jobs or starve. ' The city 
 council of Sydney,' reads a dispatch to the Globe, Toronto, dated 
 Sydney, Oct. 4, 1907, ' passed a resolution and appointed a com- 
 mittee to wait upon the officials of the Dominion Iron and Steel 
 Company and the Dominion Coal Company, asking the former 
 company to grant an increase of pay to their employes, and the 
 latter to furnish cheaper coal to the consumers. The steel company's 
 lowest individual wage per day at present is $1.35, and it is the 
 intention of the delegation representing the city to ask the company 
 that in future they pay not less than $2 a day. There are over 
 1,000 unskilled labourers employed, and if the request is granted it 
 means an enormous sum in the year.' The number of workpeople 
 at the steel plant in July, 1907, was 2,970." — Herald, Halifax, 
 July 31, 1907.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 DUMPING WITH THE AID OF BOUNTIES 
 
 " I speak with great respect of our self-governing Colonies, and I 
 don't criticise their tariffs, which, from their point of view, are 
 expedient and even necessary. But, from the point of view of the 
 Empire, these tariffs are not an assistance but an impediment to 
 unity." — Lord Rosebery, March 12, 1908. 
 
 " Is it right from an Imperial point of view that Canada should 
 grant bounties on the production of material exported in competition 
 with the Mother Country? Is it right that bountied Canadian iron 
 should be shipped even to the Mother Country if it is to be sold 
 here against British iron? " — Glasgow Herald, Aug. 5, 1909. 
 
 " The law now gives subsidies or bonuses, taken out of the tax- 
 payers' pockets, to railway builders, to men who run steamer lines, 
 to makers of steel and iron, to smelters of lead, to pumpers of 
 petroleum, to spinners of binder-twine, and to men who establish 
 cold-storage warehouses. Outsiders would be justified in thinking 
 Canadians a nation of commercial cripples." — Montreal Gazette, 
 March 15, 1908. 
 
 Both the rail mills — that at Sydney and that at Sault 
 Ste. Marie — began work about the same time in June, 
 1904. The demand for rails at this time was un- 
 usually brisk. The Government Commission which 
 was created to oversee the building of the new Grand 
 Trunk Pacific, which stretches from Moncton, New 
 Brunswick, to Rupert, British Columbia, was in the 
 market for rails. So was the Canadian Northern 
 Railway Company, which was then busy with its 
 extensions and new lines in the prairie provinces. At 
 this time also there was much double tracking by the 
 Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific; and until the 
 depression in Canada that followed the panic in New 
 York in October, 1907, there was no lack of business 
 for the rail mills in Nova Scotia and Ontario. There 
 were, in fact, more orders than these mills could 
 fill; for an order by the Transcontinental Commis- 
 sion for rails for a section of the new line west of 
 
 131
 
 132 
 
 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Winnipeg — an order for 50,000 tons — went in 1906 to 
 the United States Steel Products Company of New 
 York, the organisation which handles the non-. 
 domestic business of the United States Steel 
 Corporation.* 
 
 Half-way through 1908, however, there was a 
 falling off in these demands from the railway com- 
 panies. The Sault Ste. Marie mill went off the 
 active list for awhile in July;t and about this time, 
 when it was realised at Sydney "that the require- 
 ments of Canadian roads would furnish little work 
 for the rail mill beyond the end of September," I 
 the Dominion Company, anxious to keep its equip- 
 ment fully employed, did as it had done between 
 1901 and 1906, when it had on hand pig iron, ingots, 
 and billets for which there was no available market 
 in Canada. It began to drum up an export business 
 for the rail mill. 
 
 Nine Thousand Tons of 
 Sydney Steel Rails Order- 
 ed For Road in India 
 
 SYDNEY, September 25 — A far extension of 
 the market for Sydney rails was announced to- 
 day by General Manager Jones of the Dominion 
 Iron and Steel company. An order has been 
 received by the company for steel rails to be 
 manufactured for the Southern Panjaub Railway 
 company. The quantity, which is to be delivered 
 at Couractie. India, consists of 9,000 tons of 
 eighty pound rails, and will be sent direct by 
 steamer via the Suez canal. The company will 
 commence to roll the order October 15th. This 
 handsome order has been secured in competition 
 with the mills of the world and had to be approv- 
 ed by the viceroy of India. 
 
 Its efforts were soon successful ; and on Septem- 
 ber 25 an official announcement, of which the accom- 
 
 * Cf. House of Commons Debates, Questions, May 27, 1908. 
 t Cf. Globe, Toronto, July 16, 1908. 
 + Record, Sydney, Nov. 7, 1908.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 133 
 
 panying is a facsimile, appeared in the evening 
 newspapers of Halifax; and from Halifax, the news, 
 regarded as so important there as to be set out in 
 a "frame," was telegraphed to the daily newspapers 
 of all the large cities of the Dominion. 
 
 The news from Sydney of September 25 was 
 almost epoch-making. It will long be a date line 
 in the fiscal and industrial history of Canada. It was 
 commented on editorially in all the Canadian news- 
 papers — by the w^eekly journals in the smaller towns, 
 as well as by the newspapers of the cities. Its 
 political significance, with the bounties to expire on 
 December 31, 1910, was variously interpreted, accord- 
 ing to the standpoint from which the newspapers had 
 hitherto regarded the bounty policy, and also accord- 
 ing to the industrial interests with which the men 
 who control several of the prominent Government 
 newspapers are associated. In the columns of these 
 Government journals the order for India was a 
 triumph of the National Policy, as it had been deve- 
 loped since 1897 by the Laurier Government. In 
 other and more independent newspapers the inference 
 was drawn that as the order for India had necessarily 
 been taken at a lower price than Canadian railways 
 had been paying for rails since 1904 there could be 
 no claim for a renewal of the bounty law of 1907 in 
 the Parliamentary session of 1908-9. 
 
 Farmers and grain growers in Ontario and the 
 prairie provinces had long persistently opposed the 
 bounty policy. There were sixty-five petitions from 
 the granges of Ontario against it in the session of 
 1907,* eighteen months before rails were dumped by 
 the Dominion Company ; and most of the newspapers 
 of rural Canada, in the autumn and winter of 1908-9, 
 supported the farmers' and the grain growers' move- 
 ment, and insisted that the industry had at last 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, Feb. 26, 1907.
 
 134 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 reached a stage at which there could be no justifica- 
 tion for further payments from the Treasury to the 
 iron and steel companies of Novia Scotia and 
 Ontario. 
 
 Long before the discussion in the newspapers 
 showed any signs of slackening, there was news from 
 Sydney — November ii, 1908 — that an order had 
 arrived there for 18,000 tons of rails for the Govern- 
 ment of New South Wales;* and this second 
 announcement was followed only two days later by 
 the further news that several orders had been obtained 
 in Mexico. "There is," said the News of Toronto, in 
 explaining the industrial significance of these Mexican 
 orders, "a small steel plant in Mexico, but its capacity 
 is not large enough to supply that country's growing 
 demands, and every year a certain quantity of rail 
 orders go to the United States. Owing to its favour- 
 able location for export trade, the Dominion Steel 
 Company, it is said, is able to ship rails by water 
 cheaper than the United States mills can transport 
 them to the south. "f 
 
 Two days before this announcement, when the 
 Indian and the New South Wales orders were in 
 hand, but before the Mexican order had been made 
 public, it was intimated from Sydney that the 
 Dominion Company was "satisfied that its success 
 so far in outside competition would be followed 
 shortly by larger and more important orders. "i 
 There was an interval before this expectation was 
 realised ; but on April 30, 1909, the news from 
 Sydney, published in Montreal, was that "the 
 management was ambitious. It was undertaking big 
 things," all of which was introductory to the an- 
 nouncement that the Great Northern Railway Com- 
 
 * Cf. Wiiness, Montreal, Nov. ii ; Commercial Intelligence, 
 London, Dec. 2, 1908. 
 
 t News, Toronto, Nov. 13, 1908. 
 X Witness, Montreal, Nov. 11, 190S.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 135 
 
 pany had ordered 5,000 tons of rails — "the first 
 order the company has received from a railway in 
 the British Isles."* 
 
 By the end of April consignments ol these rails 
 for export were on the wharf at Sydney awaiting 
 shipment, and enthusiastic reports of all this mill 
 and waterside activity were appearing in the Montreal 
 newspapers. "The wharf at the works," wrote one 
 Sydney correspondent, "presents a most animated 
 appearance, with hundreds of men working at a 
 break-neck pace, so as to enable the vessel to clear 
 on time, and to make room for others to take on 
 their cargoes. There never has been a time in the 
 history of the steel corporation when the shipment of 
 rails was conducted on such a large scale. This re- 
 markable activity gives promise of continuing 
 throughout the season, as the plant is working night 
 and day to keep up with the orders. "f 
 
 The price of rails at the mills in Canada from 
 1904 to 1908 was $32.50 a ton.+ For delivery at 
 Port Arthur or Fort William, at the head of Lake 
 Superior, the price was $34.00 from the mill at Sault 
 Ste. Marie, and $34.50 from the mill at Sydney. § 
 In the early days of this new industrial activity in 
 Cape Breton it was asserted and re-asserted in Cana- 
 dian newspapers, hostile to the bounty system, that 
 the orders for India and New South Wales must 
 have been accepted at prices much below those paid 
 by Canadian railway companies. Otherwise these 
 orders of September and November, 1908, could not 
 have been secured in open competition with British 
 mills in the international rail pool. Similar comment 
 and also complaints that the Dominion Company was 
 availing itself of the Government largesse it had long 
 
 * Witness, Montreal, April 30, 1909. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 t Cf. House of Commons Debates, Questions, March 26, 1909. 
 
 § Ibid., May 27, 1908.
 
 136 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 been enjoying to dump in British markets soon began 
 to appear in London and provincial newspapers. 
 
 To these criticisms there was a reply from the 
 Dominion Company. "We consider our plant," 
 said Mr. J. H. Plummer, since 1904 president of the 
 company, "equal to any other plant in the world, and 
 the location is such that we are in a good position 
 to export owing to our natural situation on tide water, 
 which enables us to take advantage of the low ocean 
 rates as compared with a combination of rail and 
 ocean rates. We therefore feel that we should 
 endeavour to get our share of the world's market, 
 and have every intention of continuing to do so. We 
 are going our own way, and see no reason why other 
 manufacturers should interfere with our operations." 
 
 "In exporting rails," continued Mr. Plummer, 
 "we are only following the example of others — that 
 is, selling our products to the best advantage. This 
 is no new policy, as British, German, and American 
 manufacturers have been doing this. Regarding the 
 question of dumping, I wish to state that the prices 
 we are getting for the rails ordered from abroad show 
 a profit quite apart from the Government bounty. 
 As to the suggestion that it would be interesting to 
 have a comparison between the prices paid by the 
 Grand Trunk Pacific Company and those paid by 
 our customers abroad, we can only say that it w^ould 
 be equally interesting to have a comparison between 
 the prices charged by British and other European 
 manufacturers in the home market and those in the 
 foreign."* 
 
 Mr. Plummer published this statement while in 
 London. It was supplemented by another of political 
 significance in Canada quite equal to his dictum 
 regarding the export policy of the Dominion Com- 
 pany. In the exultation of these new conquests there 
 
 * Wihiess, Montreal, Dec. 14, 1908.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM T37 
 
 was circulated in Montreal a rumour that the 
 Dominion Company was at this time — December 8, 
 1908 — negotiating for the purchase of "two large 
 steel works in England, and that these mills were 
 among the best of their kind in the British Isles." 
 The Canadian Associated Press was asked from 
 Montreal to ascertain what foundation there was for 
 this rumour. "Mr. Plummer," read the cablegram 
 from London in response to this inquiry, "said that 
 such a deal was not contemplated, and declared that 
 the Dominion Steel Company, with its modern plant 
 at Sydney, was in a position to manufacture rails 
 much more cheaply in Cape Breton than it could 
 possibly do in England."* 
 
 In those days of wild exultation at Sydney, when 
 its rail mill was the theme of hundreds of paragraphs 
 — news and editorial — in British as well as in Cana- 
 dian newspapers, there was no feeling, as there was 
 in the autumn of 19 10, when bounty payments w^ere 
 coming to an end and compensating duties were 
 being urged in their place, that the iron and steel 
 industry was "still in the gristle," still needing 
 Government help to protect it from American and 
 British competition. There was no suggestion in 
 Mr. Plummer's interview that the rail mill was still 
 leaning heavily on the politicians; and there was 
 certainly nothing reminiscent of political aid in a 
 statement for publication made by Mr. Frank F. 
 Jones, the general manager of the Dominion Com- 
 pany, two weeks after the Plummer interview. 
 
 "Orders for rails," said Mr. Jones, in an interview 
 at Sydney, December 24, 1908, "are coming in from 
 all over the world," and while he could not give 
 particulars he could say that the company was likely 
 to receive orders within the next three months that 
 would prove a revelation to the Canadian steel in- 
 
 * Wiiness, Montreal, Dec. 8, 1908.
 
 138 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 dustry. "The plant," continued the dispatch from 
 Sydney to Montreal, from which the foregoing state- 
 ment is quoted, "is in a position to furnish steel to the 
 world's market at $6 a ton less than Pittsburgh, on 
 account of the fact that the cost of assembling the 
 raw materials at Pittsburgh is, at the lowest estimate, 
 $3.25 per ton, to which must be added the cost of 
 conveying the manufactured iron to the seaboard — 
 namely, $2 per ton ; while the cost of assemblage at 
 Sydney, which is on the seaboard, and a thousand 
 miles nearer to the great markets, is given at 80 cents 
 per ton, the difference in favour of Svdney being 
 calculated at $6 per ton."* 
 
 The Dominion Company took the people of Canada 
 into its confidence to a remarkable degree during these 
 exciting days of the autumn of igo8 and winter of 
 1908-9. Its responsible chiefs realised that history 
 was being made at Sydney, and that news of what 
 was doing there was of interest from Cape Breton to 
 Vancouver. The extent of the orders, the weight per 
 yard of the rails, the order of shipment from the 
 company's wharf on Sydney harbour, the pressure 
 on the rail mill to keep up with this oversea business, 
 and the world-wide significance of such orders as that 
 from the Great Northern Railway Company, were 
 all emphasised in the news dispatches from Sydney. 
 Nothing was left untold except the price at which the 
 oversea orders were taken. There was much specula- 
 tion in Canada on this point, and almost ^s much 
 in England ; but all that could be definitely gathered 
 was that the exact price had been communicated in 
 confidence to some of the British firms that had 
 tendered for the Indian order f ; that the secret was 
 
 * Wiiness, Montreal, Dec. 24. 1908. 
 
 t " Mr. Plummer said the public could make a pretty good guess 
 as to where the ' knocking ' at the steel interests came from. 
 ' It is too absurd,' he continued, ' to call for further comment. On 
 the other hand, it is considered a matter of congratulation that the
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 139 
 
 being carefully guarded; "but that the price is said 
 to be considerably lower than that at which the same 
 firm is now supplying the same type of rail in the 
 Dominion of Canada."* 
 
 Information of a more definite character w-as forth- 
 coming from London in July, 1909. About that time 
 the Dominion Company tendered for an order for the 
 Transvaal. The order went to a rail mill in Russia. 
 British mills also tendered for this order for South 
 Africa, at ^^5 5s. to £s 7s. 6d. free on board, equal 
 to £6 2s. 6d. and £6 5s. at Delagoa Bay, as against 
 the Russian price of £s 13s. and £s 14s. t It then 
 became known that the British quotation for this 
 order was eleven shillings higher than the Russian 
 quotation, "and seven shillings higher than the 
 tender of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, 
 who spoiled their chance of obtaining the contract by 
 their reservation about the shipment of the rails." I 
 
 Ignorant of the fact, or perhaps ignoring that 
 protests of British iron manufacturers against the 
 National Policy of the Canadian Government in 1859, 
 1879 and 1883 had been without avail, at least one 
 British rail-making company protested at Ottawa 
 against this competition in 1908-9 of the Dominion 
 Company for contracts in England and in the British 
 Colonies ;§ and in Glasgow it was insisted that "this 
 question of bounties on manufactures within the 
 Empire " must be fought out ; that it was one of the 
 subjects that must be taken up with earnestness at 
 the Imperial Conference of 191 1. II 
 
 steel company has been able to secure such a large order from 
 India in open competition with the big steel interests of the United 
 States and Europe.' " — VVi/ness, Montreal, Oct. 20, 1908. 
 
 * Yorkshire Herald, York, Oct. 23, 1908. 
 
 t For these quotations, furnished Sept. 20, 1909, I am indebted 
 to Mr. J. G. Murray, editor of Commercial Intelligence, London. 
 
 + Commercial Intelligence, London, July 28, 1909. 
 
 § Ibid. 
 
 II Cf. Glasgow Herald, Aug. 5, 1909.
 
 I40 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Among Canadian protectionists, and particularly 
 with the small and stridently assertive group of high 
 protectionists chiefly to be found in Hamilton and 
 Toronto that is profuse and demonstrative in its pro- 
 fessions of loyalty to the Mother Country and to the 
 Empire, this episode of the winter of 1908-9 was 
 regarded in quite another light. The Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association issues from its head- 
 quarters in Toronto a monthly journal — Industrial 
 Canada — edited under the supervision of one of the 
 permanent committees of the Association. " The 
 opponents of protection," said Industrial Canada,* 
 in commenting on the discussion of dumping from 
 Sydney in Canadian and British newspapers, 
 "have been busy denouncing the Dominion Iron 
 and Steel Company for having, as one paper puts 
 it, ' captured a contract for 9,000 tons of steel 
 rails for India from British houses.' ' See,' they cry, 
 ' what protection, bounties and tax exemptions have 
 done ! They have actually placed a Canadian con- 
 cern in a position where it can go into competition 
 with the world, and even outdo British houses.' Just 
 think of that ! The feeling of most Canadians will 
 be one of pride in a Canadian institution which is 
 able to go so far afield and win out. If the aid the 
 Government has given it has enabled it to do this, 
 it shows only that the Government has spent its 
 money well. Did anyone think that the Government 
 was paying a bounty to the iron and steel industry 
 with the hope that it would prove a failure ? Those 
 people who are crying out against its success must 
 have thought that that was what the Government 
 had in view. It has always been our opinion that 
 the Government was aiding the industry in order to 
 enable it to do just what it has done — win out against 
 competition." 
 
 * December, 1908.
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE BURDEN ON THE FARMER 
 
 " We must check this exodus by some me-ans, and the only way 
 is to make this country a cheaper country to live in than the United 
 States." — Official Report of Ottawa Liberal Convention, 1893, p. 109. 
 
 " The agricultural settler in the newer parts of the country makes 
 the market for both capital and labour, but competes with neither. 
 He cannot be protected in his home market because it flows into the 
 open sea ; but the market which he makes for both employer and 
 labourer can be protected in their interests. It is not difficult to 
 perceive why the farmer is, economically at least, so jxipular a 
 citizen, and why he and his family receive so much well-meant urban 
 advice to remain on the farm." — Professor Adam Shortt, Chairman 
 Civil Service Commission ; Industrial Canada, February, 1910. 
 
 " One thing is sure, the time has gone by when farmers can 
 safely keep on working out in the sun and trust their public interests 
 to people who sit on a comfortable chair in the shade. From earliest 
 time the man in the shade has enjoyed a special privilege and worked 
 it to the limit." — Rural New Yorker, Aug. 9, 1907. 
 
 It is only necessary to turn to the official report of 
 the Liberal convention of 1893,* now a rare political 
 document in Canada, for proof that from the earliest 
 days of the National Policy the farmers of the West 
 have bitterly complained of the heavy burden that the 
 continuous leaning of industry upon the politicians 
 threw upon them. At the time the Ottawa conven- 
 tion was held, Manitoba and British Columbia were 
 the only organised provinces west of the Great Lakes. 
 Saskatchewan and Alberta were then of the North- 
 West Territories and under federal rule. There were 
 no representatives of British Columbia at the con- 
 vention. f 
 
 * Official Report of the Liberal Convention, held in response to 
 the call of the Hon. Wilfrid Laurier, Leader of the Liberal Party 
 of the Dominion of Canada, Ottawa, June 20 and 21, 1893. Pub- 
 lished by the Budget Printing and Publishing Company, Toronto. 
 
 t "Although not represented, British Columbia takes warm in- 
 terest in the proceedings of the Liberal convention. Sentiment here 
 
 141
 
 142 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Manitoba and the North- West Territories were 
 represented ; and their representatives laid especial 
 emphasis on the burdens of the farmers and ranchmen 
 under the National Policy of 1879. Mr. Clifford 
 Sifton's speech, and his other stirring and eloquent 
 pleas from 1893 to June, 1896, for relief for the 
 farmers, have been quoted elsewhere in these pages. 
 At the Ottawa convention he was supported in his 
 crusade against the duties of 20 per cent, on agricul- 
 tural implements by Mr. Thomas Watson, then Com- 
 missioner of Public Works under a Liberal adminis- 
 tration in Manitoba, and by Mr. James Hamilton 
 Ross, then Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of 
 the North- West Territories, at Regina. These 
 speeches are significant for the light they throw on 
 the condition of the Western farmers under the 
 National Policy of 1879-96. Still more significance 
 attaches to them because since 1900 Mr. Watson has 
 been of the Senate at Ottawa as a nominee of the 
 Laurier Government ; while from 1902 to 1904 Mr. 
 Ross was a supporter in the House of Commons of 
 the greatly extended National Policy of the Laurier 
 Government, and since September, 1904, he also has 
 been of the Senate, to which he was appointed by Sir 
 Wilfrid Laurier.* 
 
 Descriptions of conditions in the West under the 
 old National Policy by Senators Watson and Ross 
 were accepted as true by the Ottawa convention, and 
 they may be taken to-day to illustrate the burdensome 
 conditions of 1879-1896. "We in the West," Mr. 
 Watson told the convention, "have even a greater 
 disadvantage than that of railway freights in this 
 accursed tariff, which has borne so heavily on the 
 
 favours a policy of freer trade with Great Britain and her Colonies, 
 especially Australia, and reciprocity of trade with all other nations." 
 Telegram received at Liberal Convention, 1893. Report, p. 25. 
 * Cf. Chambers' Parliamentary Guide, 1909, pp. 65, 71, 218.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 143 
 
 settler. I am free to admit that with us many of the 
 people are hard up. How could it be otherwise under 
 such a system ? I have no hesitation in saying that 
 if the money unjustly taken from the pockets of the 
 people were returned, every man would be able to pay 
 off his debts and have something to his credit in the 
 bank. We have no use for protection in the North- 
 West, for nothing is raised in price for the benefit 
 of the farmer, but on everything he buys he has to 
 pay extra on account of the tariff. Therefore, we 
 want the freest trade possible. The whole Dominion 
 is interested in the North- West ; and it is to the in- 
 terest of the people of Canada that it should be filled 
 with settlers. We are spending large sums of money 
 on immigration, and I can tell you that if we had 
 free trade in Manitoba we should have thousands and 
 hundreds of thousands without spending a dollar to 
 get them there. What the people of Manitoba want 
 is a free field and no favour. As it is now we are 
 compelled to sell our produce in the markets of the 
 world, and then we have to turn round and buy our 
 supplies in a protected market." * 
 
 The second of these speeches — that by Senator 
 Ross — was much in the same spirit, and to the same 
 end as that by Senator Watson. "I am of opinion," 
 said Senator Ross, "that the policy that you have 
 laid down to-day f — tariff for revenue only, looking 
 towards free trade — will win great favour in the 
 North- West. The farmers with us believe in protec- 
 tion, but not that breed which we have had. They 
 want now to be protected from the manufacturer. 
 They believe that their only chance of success lies in 
 
 * Official Report, Liberal Convention, pp. 119, 120. 
 
 t " We denounce tiie principle of protection as radically unsound, 
 and unjust to the masses of the people ; and we declare our con- 
 viction that any tariff changes based on that principle must fail to 
 afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the 
 country labours.,"'-Ifcid., p- 72.
 
 144 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 getting their supplies and implements, which are 
 their raw materials, at as cheap a rate as possible, 
 knowing as they do that the only articles which they 
 produce for export — No. i hard wheat and No. i 
 grass beef, both the best of their class in the world — 
 must find a market in free trade England. It goes 
 without argument that protection in any form must 
 injure and cannot assist them." * 
 
 At this time, 1893, when the Liberals were so 
 wrought up concerning the burden of the National 
 Policy on the farmers, the population of Manitoba 
 was 155,000, and that of the North- West Territories 
 67,000. Homesteaders have been going into the 
 prairie provinces in numbers varying from twenty 
 to forty thousand a year since then; and in 1910 
 there was in Manitoba a population of 496,000; 
 in Saskatchewan of 377,000, and in Alberta of 
 32 1, 000. t 
 
 In the older provinces east of the Great Lakes, there 
 has been no increase in the number of farmers. In 
 recent years there have been decreases in the popula- 
 tion of rural Ontario. J All the increase in the farming 
 population has accrued to the prairie provinces. 
 There the increase has been so continuous and so 
 large that by 1908 it was stated in the House of Com- 
 mons that there were 575,000 farmers in Canada, and 
 that 3,788,000 men, women and children — consider- 
 ably over one-half of the population— were supported 
 directly by farming. § 
 
 It is this population, of which not one in a thou- 
 
 * Official Report, Liberal Convention, pp. iog-122. 
 
 t Cf. Statement of estimated population on March 31, 1910, 
 issued in August by Census Department at Ottawa. 
 
 + Cf. Sun, Toronto, March 3, 1909. 
 
 " An exodus of 70,000 to the United States last year, 10,000 of 
 whom left 60 rural parishes of Quebec ; the Maritime Provinces 
 falling behind in population, and the rural population of Ontario 
 falling off 8,000 a year for years." — Sun, Toronto, Nov. 2, 1910. 
 
 § Cf. House of Commons Debates, April 13, 1909.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 145 
 
 sand ever derived the least advantage from protection, 
 that is regarded by the manufacturers as their " most 
 interesting and most promising sales problem";* 
 and it is this population that Conservative Govern- 
 ments from 1879, and Liberal Governments since 
 1896, have rounded up and corralled for the manu- 
 facturers, and in more recent years for exploitation by 
 trusts, combines, and mergers. These are the people 
 — hundreds of thousands of whom, especially in 
 Quebec and in the Maritime Provinces, manage to do 
 little more than earn a bare living — to whom the New 
 Feudalism addresses itself when it urges the people 
 of Canada to take large views, and to make sacrifices 
 for "a well-rounded national development" — for a 
 development that inevitably means the piling up for a 
 few of fortunes undreamed of when Cayley and Gait 
 in 1858 and 1859 first made it possible in Canada for 
 industry to lean on the politician. 
 
 These people are told by the organs of the New 
 Feudalism that "the selfish man who thinks only of 
 his immediate interests, cares nothing for the general 
 welfare, nor for his own future, is a poor citizen of 
 any country, and a positive detriment to a young, 
 aspiring country like Canada." "Canada," it is im- 
 pressed on the 3,778,000 men, women and children 
 who are of the farming population, "is not a country 
 where we can afford to let industries die. If they are 
 being too hard pressed by outside competition we 
 have to come to their assistance, and help them all 
 we can to win out in the fight. If we are out of 
 pocket for a time, we will get our rew-ard later on, 
 when the country will have developed into a hive of 
 industry, and undreamed-of opportunities will be 
 opened up for us all. A little genuine patriotism is 
 what these selfish ones need."f 
 
 * Industrial Catiada, August, igio. 
 + Ibid., December, iqo8.
 
 146 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 East as well as West the National Policy pens in 
 the farming population so completely and so securely 
 that it cannot escape the exactions of the protectionist 
 division of the New Feudalism. But it is in the prairie 
 provinces that the exactions are most goading and 
 most burdensome, because the needs of homesteaders 
 are more numerous than those of farmers long set- 
 tled in the older provinces, and also because the 
 prairie provinces are nearer to St. Paul, Minneapolis 
 and Duluth, and other manufacturing and distribut- 
 mg centres of the states of the north-west, with their 
 cheaper goods, than they are to Toronto, Hamilton, 
 London, Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers, the 
 manufacturing and distributing centres of the 
 Dominion. 
 
 Bread from Canadian flour has long been "much 
 dearer" in Toronto than in England;* and "not long 
 ago a list of ii6 staple manufactured goods which are 
 sold at wholesale and at retail far higher in Canada 
 than in the States, was compiled by an accurate 
 Canadian expert. "f For years manufactured goods 
 from St. Paul and Minneapolis have been sold in 
 the prairie provinces at lower prices than similar 
 goods from the manufacturing centres of Ontario and 
 Quebec ; for one reason because freight charges from 
 St. Paul and Minneapolis and Duluth are, on account 
 of the shorter distance, less than on similar goods 
 from Toronto and Montreal. 
 
 It was for this reason, because the National Policy 
 
 * Cf. Globe, Toronto, "Famine Prices in Canada," Jan. 19 
 and July 14, 1910; also "A Comparison between the Relative 
 Purchasing Powers of the Dollar in London and Winnipeg," 
 Free Press, Winnipeg, Jan. 11, 1908. Mr. Robert Meighen, pre- 
 sident of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, sells his flour 
 in England cheaper than he sells it in the middle of the country 
 where the wheat is grown. — Editorial article in the Grain Growers'" 
 Guide, Nov. 9, 19 10, on Mr. Robert Meighen 's letter to Sir Joseph 
 Lawrence in the Morning Post, London, Oct. 18, 19 10. 
 
 f E. W. Thomson, of Ottawa, in Transcript, Boston, Sept. 
 17, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 147 
 
 cannot equalise the rail haul between Winnipeg and 
 Eastern Canada and Winnipeg and St. Paul and 
 Minneapolis, and because American goods of the 
 quality, style and price needed by settlers find a ready 
 market in the prairie provinces — that at the revision 
 of the tariff in 1907 manufacturers of boots and shoes, 
 of heating stoves, and even of coffins, demanded 
 higher duties than those of the tariff of 1897. 
 
 A concession was made to the boot and shoe manu- 
 facturers. But coffins, which are made only at 
 Amherst, Nova Scotia, and at Three Rivers, Quebec, 
 and Prescott, London, Hamilton and Toronto, 
 Ontario,* although bulky freight when shipped from 
 these centres of the trade to Winnipeg and beyond, 
 were permitted, out of consideration for new settlers 
 in the prairie provinces, to remain at 25 per cent, in 
 the tariff of 1907. Stoves, also costly to transport, 
 were for the same reason left at 25 per cent., although 
 a higher tariff might have made business brisker 
 for the coffin manufacturers. 
 
 The stove division of the New Feudalism was 
 sore and indignant at this refusal of the Tariff Com- 
 mission of 1905-6 to manipulate tariff schedules so as 
 to equalise freight rates between the Ontario centres of 
 the foundry industry and St. Paul and Minneapolis. 
 It nursed ill-feeling from November, 1906, when the 
 new tariff was introduced to the House of Commons, 
 until September, 1907, when the annual convention 
 of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association w^as held 
 in Toronto. Then, in a sympathetic environment, the 
 outburst came; and the disgruntled stove manufac- 
 turer startled Canada with the declaration : " I would 
 make the tariff as high as Haman's gallows if it is to 
 keep the Yankee out." f 
 
 * Cf. "Caskets," Industrial Canada^ Trade Index, June, 1909, 
 p. 965. 
 
 + " They should," said the author of the Haman's gallows 
 phrase, which has been constantly in service in tariff discussions
 
 148 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 All orders of the New Feudalism — tariff bene- 
 ficiaries, transatlantic and lake steamship companies, 
 railway companies, boomers of town sites and other 
 urban real estate, and exploiters of public lands — 
 agricultural, mineral and timber — have since 1898 en- 
 thusiastically and vigorously supported the aggressive 
 immigration policy of the Laurier Government, the 
 policy that was inaugurated and pushed by Mr. 
 Clifford Sifton, who was Minister of the Interior from 
 1896 to 1905.* 
 
 For the railway companies and particularly for the 
 Canadian Pacific, the older transcontinental com- 
 pany, f much gain has accrued from the Sifton policy 
 
 in Canada since 1907, " loolv down tlie tariff schedules, find out 
 what industries were hurt, go to Ottawa, and never let up until 
 these industries were taken care of. What they wanted to do in 
 future was to instruct the Tariff Committee (of the Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association) that until every industry in the country 
 was adequately taken care of, the politics of the Association would 
 be tariff." — Globe, Sept. 26, 1907. 
 
 * Cf. Chambers's " Parliamentary Guide," 1909, p. 142. ' 
 t The subsidies received by the Canadian Pacific in cash, in com- 
 pleted railway, and in land amount to an enormous sum in 
 the aggregate. Leaving out the assistance given to lines acquired 
 by the company, and omitting the amount obtained from the 
 provinces, the Canadian Pacific has received, on account of its 
 main line and western branches, from the Dominion Government 
 alone : — 
 
 In cash ... ... ... ... $29,416,000 
 
 In completed railway 35,000,000 
 
 In lands (acres) ... 26,710,000 
 
 Up to June 30, 1909, the company had disposed of a little over 
 18,500,000 acres (including that sold to the Dominion Government) 
 for the sum, less expenses, of $60,548,000. The company had still 
 in hand 8,204,000 acres, and since its average sales during the 
 year then ended averaged $13.70 per acre, the value of these 
 remaining lands may be safely placed at $11,000,000. Thus in 
 money, or money's worth, the Canadian Pacific has received from 
 the Dominion Government alone : — 
 
 In cash ... ... ... ... $29,416,000 
 
 In completed railways ... ... 35,000,000 
 
 In lands ... ... ... ... 71,548,000 
 
 Total $135,964,000 
 
 This is equal to nearly $24,000 per mile for the entire length of 
 the Canadian Pacific Railway, including branches and spurs ; while 
 
 I
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 149 
 
 in increased passenger earnings and a continuously 
 expanding freight business, East as well as West. 
 Most gain, however, has accrued to the protected 
 manufacturers; for the inpouring into Canada since 
 1898 has tended to keep down wages in the manu- 
 facturing centres of Quebec and Ontario ; it has added 
 to the number of the urban population corralled by 
 the National Policy ; and, more important still, it has 
 added enormously to the number of homesteaders in 
 Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. 
 
 Immigration which adds to the urban population 
 of the wage- or salary-earning class, under the 
 National Policy, as a matter of course, increases the 
 demand for the output of Canadian factories. But 
 the newcomer from England or Scotland who settles 
 in Montreal or Toronto, or in any of the towns or 
 cities of Ontario, has not to spend nearly so much 
 money in establishing himself in his new home as 
 the immigrant who pushes beyond the wilderness 
 that separates North Bay from Kenora and the Lake 
 of the Woods, and establishes himself as a home- 
 steader in any of the three prairie provinces. 
 
 "Any person who is the sole head of a family, or 
 any male over eighteen years old," reads the North- 
 West land regulations of the Dominion Government, 
 "may homestead a quarter section (one hundred and 
 sixty acres) of available Dominion land in Manitoba, 
 
 the total capitalisation of the line is only a little more than $38,000 
 per mile, and a good deal of that capital is in the form of 
 stock, a large portion of which was purchased by present holders 
 at from 25 to 45 cents on the dollar. In other words, nearly 
 65 per cent, of the capitalisation of the company, as set forth in 
 the official returns, was provided from the public treasury or the 
 public estate ; while the remaining 35 per cent., supplied from 
 private sources, is largely water. And on top of all this, the 
 Canadian Pacific has been, as Mr. Hays further points out, largely 
 exempted from local taxation as well. — Sun, Toronto, July 20, 
 1910. 
 
 The average rate of taxation of railways per mile in the 
 United States is $382, almost four times the rate collected in 
 Ontario. — Sun, Toronto, Aug. 17, 1910.
 
 150 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Saskatchewan or Alberta." "Six months' residence 
 upon and cultivation of the land in each of three 
 years " is the condition under which the quarter sec- 
 tions are allotted to settlers, although "a home- 
 steader may live within nine miles of his homestead, 
 on a farm of at least eighty acres, solely owned and 
 occupied by him, or by his father, mother, son, 
 daughter, brother or sister." A family that thus 
 avails itself of the homestead law, and begins the 
 cultivation of grain, comes at four stages of its 
 enterprise under the National Policy. A home 
 must be built ; furniture must be bought ; the 
 farm must be equipped with tools and machinery ; 
 and thereafter supplies for the home and cloth- 
 ing and renewal of equipment constitute con- 
 tinual charges. 
 
 The free list is of obvious service to the homestead 
 family that can afford only a shanty. Planks, boards, 
 clapboards, laths and shingles and lumber dressed 
 on one side only, but not further manufactured, are 
 not protected by the National Policy. But boards that 
 are jointed or tongued or grooved, so as to be avail- 
 able for flooring, pay a duty of 25 per cent. ; and 
 doors and window sashes and frames a duty of 17 '2 
 per cent. On bricks, necessary for a chimney even in 
 a shanty, the duty is 22}4 per cent. ; on chimney pots, 
 drain pipes, and tiles, 35 per cent. On dressed stone 
 there is a duty of 20 per cent.; and on cement 12^^ 
 cents per 100 pounds. On nails the duty is 60 
 cents per 100 pounds; on builders' hardware 
 — hinges, door and window fastenings and such 
 metal requisites in house building — the duties aver- 
 age 30 per cent. The duty on bath and lavatory 
 fittings is 35 per cent. ; on wallpaper, 35 per cent. ; on 
 paint, 30 per cent. ; and on white lead, 373^ per cent. 
 Window glass pays a duty of 15 per cent., and "putty 
 of all kinds," 25 per cent. As compensation, sand.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 151 
 
 lime and water, requisite to the mixing of mortar, 
 are all on the free list. 
 
 Settlers' household effects and farm implements 
 that have been in use pay no duties. Many of the 
 settlers from the north-western states are by this pro- 
 vision of the tariff enabled to homestead and begin 
 as grain growers without much tribute being levied 
 on them by the manufacturers of household furniture 
 and agricultural implements. But a family that has 
 carried nothing with it must buy furniture, on which 
 the duty is 30 per cent. ; sheets, pillow-cases and table- 
 cloths at 30 per cent, in the general tariff and 20 per 
 cent, under the British preference; blankets, of pure 
 wool, 35 per cent, and 22}4 per cent.; not of pure 
 wool, 35 and 30 per cent. ; china, 30 and 15 per cent. ; 
 glassware, 32^^ and 20 per cent. ; plated ware, 35 
 and 225^ per cent.; knives and forks, 30 and 20 per 
 cent. ; and kitchen utensils — pots and pans — 30 and 
 20 per cent.; and enamel ware, 35 and 223^^ per 
 cent. 
 
 The burden of the National Policy on a home- 
 steader when he builds and furnishes a home for his 
 family can be estimated by any student of tariff 
 schedules. The burden at the third stage, when the 
 homesteader must equip himself for the business of 
 grain growing, has been worked out in detail in the 
 Grain Growers' Guide.* 
 
 To show more clearly the yearly toll the agricultural 
 implement manufacturers of Canada exact from the farmers 
 through the operation of the tariff, we prepared the following 
 table of implements necessary for the proper cultivation of 
 a quarter-section of land in the prairie provinces. The retail 
 price varies at different points, and that given is only 
 approximately correct. The appraised value, for the purpose 
 of determining the duty to be paid when the size of the 
 implement is given, is correct ; while in others the average 
 appraisement of different sizes is given : — 
 
 *" Homesteaders' Tariff Burden," Grain Growers' Guide, Oct. 
 5, 1910.
 
 152 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Article 
 
 Steel beam walking plough 
 Breaking plough 
 
 Retail 
 Price 
 
 $26.00 
 
 28.00 
 
 Appraisement 
 by Customs 
 
 $15.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 X 
 Duty 
 
 20% 
 
 20% 
 
 Duty 
 Paid 
 
 $3.00 
 
 3.20 
 
 Two gang ploughs (14 
 Sulky plough (16 in.) 
 
 m.) 
 
 160.00 
 60.00 
 
 102.00 
 
 33- 00 
 
 20% 
 20% 
 
 20.40 
 6.60 
 
 One set harrows 
 
 
 28.00 
 
 17.00 
 
 20% 
 
 3-40 
 
 One land roller (4 horse) 
 
 90.00 
 
 40.00 
 
 25% 
 
 10.00 
 
 One seeder (2 horse) 
 
 One disc 
 
 One cultivator 
 
 
 125.00 
 75.00 
 50.00 
 
 56.00 
 24.00 
 20.00 
 
 20% 
 
 25% 
 20% 
 
 11.20 
 6.00 
 4.00 
 
 One binder (8 ft.) ... 
 
 
 175.00 
 
 110.00 
 
 17:^% 
 
 19.25 
 
 Two wagons 
 
 
 170.00 
 
 80.00 
 
 25% 
 
 20.00 
 
 One buggy 
 
 
 I 10.00 
 
 60.00 
 
 35% 
 
 21.00 
 
 Two sleighs 
 
 One cutter 
 
 
 70.00 
 50.00 
 
 34.00 
 30.00 
 
 25% 
 35% 
 
 8.50 
 10.50 
 
 One fanning mill ... 
 
 
 40.00 
 
 25.00 
 
 25% 
 
 6.25 
 
 One hay rake (10 ft.) 
 One mower (6 ft.) ... 
 Harness for 8 horses 
 
 
 35.00 
 
 65.00 
 
 140.00 
 
 17.20 
 41.00 
 68.00 
 
 20% 
 
 175^% 
 
 30% 
 
 3-45 
 7.20 
 
 20.40 
 
 One set buggy harness ... 
 Sundry articles to the value 
 
 25.00 
 
 15.00 
 
 30% 
 
 4.50 
 
 of approximately 
 
 
 175.00 
 
 100.00 
 
 25% 
 $: 
 
 25.00 
 
 Totals ... 
 
 ... |i 
 
 [,697.00 
 
 I903.20 
 
 213.85 
 
 It may be argued that there are many homesteaders 
 who do not use all the implements tabulated above. That, 
 unfortunately, is true in hundreds of cases, and the want 
 of proper and sufficient implements, due to the excessive 
 cost, accounts largely for the bad cultivation and growth 
 of weeds on the prairie farm, which we hear so much 
 about. It might also be noted that the table shown pro- 
 vides for implements necessary on a grain farm only,* while 
 if a farmer goes into raising stock and engages in mixed 
 farming, he would necessarily have to get many more 
 implements, which would increase the above by at least 
 50 per cent. 
 
 * Many homesteaders are exclusively grain growers. Grain is 
 the only product they have to market. " The three Western 
 provinces have a wheat area of 8,376,345 acres, an increase over 
 last year's total of 1,222,595 acres. These provinces now have 
 the bulk of the wheat area, and for the present year have made 
 close on four-fifths of the increase. This shows that the tendency 
 to specialise in wheat still continues." — " The Harvest Outlook," 
 Globe, Toronto, June 21, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 153 
 
 The amount the customs tariff imposes on the above 
 enumerated list of implements figures out to $213.85. It 
 would be interesting to figure out what proportion of that 
 $213.85 goes to the Government and what to the agricultural 
 implement manufacturers of Canada under our present tariff 
 regulations. 
 
 The census of 1906, in the enumeration of manufacturers 
 in Canada, gives the manufacture of agricultural implements 
 that year at $12,835,748. Canada exported that year farming 
 implements to the extent of $2,499,104, presumably leaving 
 for use in Canada $10,336,644 worth. That year we im- 
 ported agricultural implements to the value of $1,615,123, 
 on which the Government collected a duty of $323,024. It 
 is now generally conceded that manufacturers add the full 
 extent of their protection to the selling price of their 
 product. Assuming that in 1906 the manufacturer of agri- 
 cultural implements charged the full rate of their tariff 
 protection on the $10,336,644, the portion of their product 
 retained in Canada, the Canadian farmers would give them 
 $2,067,326, compared to $323,024 paid the Government. That 
 is to say, the ratio of the amount paid to the manufacturers 
 by reason of the tariff, leaving out fractions, is in the 
 proportion of 86.14. In other words, in the year 1906 the 
 Canadian farmers paid 86 cents to the agricultural manu- 
 facturer for every 14 cents he paid to the Government as 
 revenue on his implements. Applying the same ratio to 
 the $213 set forth .a the above table, the Government would 
 get $29.82 from the farmer, and the implement manufacturer 
 $183.18. But these implements must be renewed at least 
 once in every ten years. Besides, the farmer must buy a 
 large amount of repairs each year for his implements, on 
 which he has to pay duty. Estimating the necessary repairs 
 at $50, the duty on which will average 25 per cent., or 
 $12.50, and a yearly average of $20 duty paid for replace- 
 ment of implements, his annual tribute to the manufacturer 
 of farm implements will exceed $30 per year over and above 
 what the Government collects from him for revenue on 
 implements. This is quite a respectable contribution which 
 the rural population of Canada is compelled to make to 
 the "modern barons" created under the "Feudalism" estab- 
 lished by our fiscal system, and compares favourably with 
 the annual levy made by the powerful barons of the 
 middle ages. 
 
 The Western prairies have suffered on account of many
 
 154 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 of our homesteaders not being able to properly equip their 
 farms with the necessary implements, due to the excessive 
 prices charged for them. No one will deny that if the 
 annual tribute imposed upon our homesteaders by our 
 "modern feudal barons" were diverted towards equipping 
 our homesteads, the result would be an increase in the 
 output of the farm, while the result is now that a few 
 men, probably a score or so, are annexing to themselves 
 more of the products of the farming community than is good 
 for themselves and for the country in which they live. 
 
 Finally, in this examination of the four stages in 
 a grain grower's career, at each of which he is com- 
 pelled to carry the burden of the National Policy, and 
 thereby contribute to a "well rounded development 
 of the Dominion " — to carry the burden of a tariff 
 from which it is conceded that he receives no pro- 
 tection in his industry — there is the continuous stage 
 when the homesteader must provide household sup- 
 plies and shoes and clothing for himself and his 
 family, and also meet the cost of the upkeep of his 
 home and farmstead and the renewal of farm 
 machinery. 
 
 The extra burden of renewals due to the tariff is 
 examined in the article quoted from the Grain 
 Groivers' Guide; and in the chapter on combines and 
 mergers were given the duties on many articles of 
 groceries and domestic supplies. The duties on 
 clothing and boots and shoes are all that are neces- 
 sary to complete this survey of the cost thrown upon 
 homesteaders at this last and continuing stage of their 
 enterprise.* 
 
 Grey cotton fabrics, unbleached 
 
 White cotton fabrics ... 
 
 Printed, dyed or coloured cottons 
 
 Manufactures of cotton, hemp or flax 
 Women's and children's dress goods of wool 
 and worsted ... 
 
 * See " Protection : the Curse of Canada," J 
 Grain Growers' Guide, June 15, 1910. 
 
 General 
 
 British 
 
 Tariflf 
 
 Preference 
 
 25 
 
 ... 15 
 
 25 
 
 ... 17% 
 
 32;^ 
 
 ... 25 
 
 35 
 
 ... 25 
 
 25 
 
 ... 15 
 
 J. A. 
 
 Stevenson,
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 155 
 
 General 
 
 Tariff 
 
 35 
 35 
 35 
 35 
 30 
 35 
 
 37y2 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 British 
 Preference 
 
 2234 
 
 • 30 
 
 • 30 
 
 • 25 
 
 . 22>^ 
 
 • 30 
 
 . 12^ 
 
 • ^7/2 
 
 Flannels ... 
 
 Ready-made clothing of wool and worsted 
 
 Undershirts, drawers and knitted goods 
 
 Socks and stockings 
 
 Velvets and velveteens 
 
 Ribbons 
 
 Silk goods... 
 
 Mourning crapes... 
 
 Boots and shoes, pegged or wire fastened 
 
 Boots, shoes, slippers and insoles of any 
 
 material 30 ... 20 
 
 Rubber boots and shoes 25 ... 15 
 
 Rubber clothing 35 ... 22^ 
 
 Trunks, valises and carpet bags 30 ... 20 
 
 Caps, capes, coats and cloaks of fur ... 35 ... 20 
 
 Hats and caps ... ... 35 ... 22^^ 
 
 Gloves and mits ... 35 ... 2214 
 
 Braces or suspenders ... ... ... ... 36 ... 225^ 
 
 Umbrellas and parasols ... 35 ... 22^ 
 
 Boot and shoe laces ... ... 30 ... 20 
 
 Collars and cuffs ... ... 37^^ ... 25 
 
 Feathers and artificial flowers for hats ... 30 ... 20 
 
 Jewellery ... 35 ... 22^ 
 
 Shoe buttons 25 ... 171^ 
 
 Toilet combs ... ... ... 35 ... 22}^ 
 
 Tobacco pipes ... ... ... ... ... 35 ... 22^^ 
 
 "It is well within the limits to say," wrote Air. 
 E. C. Drury, of Crown Hill, Ontario, Master of the 
 Dominion Grange, and secretary of the Dominion 
 Council of Agriculture, in September, 1910, "that our 
 protective tariff, directly and indirectly, costs the aver- 
 age farmer $200, or the interest on $4,000 per year. 
 For this he receives nothing. It is this handicap which 
 is preventing the farmer from expanding his busi- 
 ness, and which is driving population from Ontario 
 farms." * 
 
 * Sun, Toronto, Sept. 28, 1910. " From 1888 to 1908 the rural 
 population of Ontario fell off 86, 000, while during the same period 
 the urban population increased 450,000. From 1898 to 1908 the 
 rural population decreased nearly 64,000, while the urban population 
 increased 306,818. Economic in the main, if not wholly, were the
 
 156 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 "An attempt is being made," said the Sun, in 
 commenting on Mr. Drury's letter, and also on the 
 insistence at that time of the members of the Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association, that were there no tariff, 
 direct taxation would be necessary to meet the ex- 
 penses of the Dominion Government,* "to scare 
 farmers away from the movement in favour of tariff 
 reduction by raising the cry that it is a question be- 
 tween customs taxation and direct taxation. It is 
 nothing of the kind. The question is between main- 
 taining a tariff that is primarily designed to enable 
 domestic manufacturers to charge more than a fair 
 
 causes of this depopulation and impoverishment. ... If the farmer, 
 realising the extent to which he was unjustly exploited, should use 
 his political power to crush protection there would be disaster. 
 ' Haman will be hanged on the gallows fifty cubits high which he 
 built for Mordecai.'" — Address by Mr. Gordon Waldron, M.A., 
 before the Canadian Club, Toronto, Nov. 14 — Globe, Nov. 15, 1910. 
 
 * " We would never think of overturning a policy which has 
 been the policy for so many years of the Dominion of Canada, 
 raising its revenue by way of import duties, and while requiring 
 to raise a specified amount of money, raising it in a manner that 
 would protect Canadian interests and give employment to Canadian 
 people. It is a very curious thing to me, Mr. President, to com- 
 prehend why men, clever in many other ways, could take objection 
 to the fact that in the levying of duties they should be levied in 
 a manner that will have two most beneficial results — one, supplying 
 the needs of the country, and the other, developing its industries." 
 — Speech by Mr. P. W. Ellis, of Toronto, in discussion of grain 
 growers' revolt against the tariff, at the convention of the Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association, Vancouver, Sept. 20, 19 10 — Industrial 
 Canada, October, 1910. 
 
 " Taxes must be imposed in some way, for revenue must be 
 obtained to carry on the government of the country, to build 
 railways, canals and other public works. If the money for such 
 purposes is not raised by means of a customs tariff, it must be 
 taken directly out of the pockets of the people by tax collectors. 
 The aim of protectionist statesmen is to so adjust the tariff that, 
 while yielding sufficient revenue, it will encourage the establishment 
 of home industries, furnishing varied occupations for the people 
 and creating a home market for farm products." — Watson GriflRn, 
 Protection and Prices and the Farmers' Home Market," reprinted 
 from Industrial Canada, 1906, p. 7. 
 
 Who are the home consumers of farm products? Chiefly the 
 people living in the cities, towns and villages which are built up 
 by manufacturing industries. It is manifestly in the interest of 
 the farmers of Canada to increase the manufacturing population 
 in order to develop the home market." — Watson Griffin, " Protection 
 and Prices," p. 41.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 157 
 
 price for their products, and one designed to yield the 
 maximum of revenue. But even were it otherwise, 
 even if the proposal were to abolish customs duties, 
 and substitute a direct tax, what of it ? Under a 
 system of customs taxation farmers would appear to 
 be paying $^2 per capita more in taxation and unfair 
 profits to protected manufacturers than they would 
 pay in taxation alone with a system of direct taxa- 
 tion in force.* The farmer has his eyes open. He 
 is informed. Direct taxation has no terrors for 
 him." t 
 
 The burden so described by Mr, Drury, one of the 
 foremost authorities on farm economy in Ontario, 
 falls with much greater weight on the homestead in 
 Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta than on the 
 farm in Ontario or in the Maritime Provinces — 
 certainly in the earlier years of the grain grower's 
 undertaking. For homesteaders with little capital, 
 and especially for those who must serve an apprentice- 
 ship to grain growing, only patience, self-denial, 
 close economy, social isolation, and continuous hard 
 work can ensure success. A wonderfully large per- 
 centage does ultimately succeed ; and these people 
 secure for themselves a good living — as time goes on 
 something more than a living — and an economic in- 
 dependence which abundantly repays the struggle of 
 the early years. But not all homesteaders succeed. 
 The loneliness and the toil break down many men 
 who venture their all in the enterprise, and who go 
 into it full of energy and hope. These failures, some 
 
 * " E. C. Drury, basing his calculation on the actual purchases 
 of dutiable goods in a year, estimates that the present tariff 
 system costs the average farmer $200 a year. Assuming that the 
 average farm family consists of five persons, that would amount 
 to $40 per head per annum. The total customs revenue for igog, 
 the last year for which official figures are available, amounted to 
 $48,000,000, or, say, $7 per head on the basis of a population of 
 7,000,000." — Stin, Toronto, Oct. 5, igio. 
 
 + Sun, Toronto, Oct. 5, 1910.
 
 158 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 ending so direfully that mention of them finds its 
 way into newspapers of cities as far away from the 
 scene of failure as Toronto or Montreal, constitute 
 the tragedy of pioneer Hfe in the grain growing 
 provinces. 
 
 The story of some of these tragedies might be 
 told. Better here to tell the story of a struggle that 
 does promise success, but that none the less tells of 
 the hardship and the self-denial that the homesteader 
 and his family must in many cases undergo to reach 
 the goal — the much-coveted condition of economic 
 independence. It is a story not of the long ago, but 
 of August, 19] o, the year of the revolt of the West. 
 It is taken from the Herald, of Lethbridge, Alberta.* 
 
 Mrs. Clara Taylor, a member of the local Salvation 
 Army corps, lives in Lethbridge with her family, while her 
 husband stays on their homestead, thirty-five miles north of 
 the city, improving it and putting in the residence duties 
 required by the regulations. Like many other homesteaders 
 Mr. Taylor's crop amounted to nothing. He is a carpenter 
 by trade, and while on his homestead his weekly pay 
 envelope is not forthcoming, and the sum he saved when 
 last he was working has long since disappeared. To supply 
 the ready cash to keep things going until he can leave, 
 Mrs. Taylor puts in all the time she is able to spare from 
 tending her family of five by scrubbing out stores and 
 offices. 
 
 On Saturday night last she finished up her work for 
 the day shortly after eleven o'clock, and then, with her 
 arms full of groceries and other good things, she started 
 to walk to her husband's homestead, thirty-five miles away, 
 in order to spend Sunday with him. She walked all night, 
 this brave woman, and arrived at her destination some time 
 the next morning without making a single stop. But her 
 work in town called her, and she was up early Monday 
 morning and started on her return walk. She travelled 
 ten or twelve miles when she was overtaken by the Sundial 
 mail carrier, who gave her a lift and brought her into 
 Lethbridge. At the Salvation Army barracks a 'phone 
 
 * Aug. ID, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 159 
 
 message awaited her, and five minutes after her arrival she 
 was off again with her mops and bucket. 
 
 Some day Mr. and Mrs. Taylor are going to possess 
 one of the finest little 320-acre farms in Southern Alberta, 
 and who will say that they, Mrs. Taylor in particular, do 
 not deserve it ? 
 
 Products of factories in Eastern Canada, chiefly 
 in Quebec and Ontario, of an aggregate value of sixty 
 million dollars were sent in 1907 into the provinces 
 beyond Lake Superior;* and from 1900, when this 
 trade began to assume large proportions, members of 
 the Canadian Manufacturers' Association have con- 
 tinuously insisted that it was the duty of the Govern- 
 ment at Ottawa to safeguard this market from 
 American and British competition. The Tariff Com- 
 mission of 1905-6 was repeatedly told by manufac- 
 turers that the trade of the prairie provinces ought 
 to be theirs — of course, on their own terms — because 
 they were Canadians, and the people of the West, if 
 not all Canadians, were at any rate living in Canada. 
 At the Montreal convention of the Canadian 
 Manufacturers' Association in 1908, nearly two years 
 after the revision of the Fielding tariff, at which the 
 organised farmers of Ontario and the prairie provinces 
 achieved really important negative success, there was 
 a speech from Mr. Louis Simpson, of Valleyfield, 
 quite typical of the attitude of the manufacturers of 
 Hamilton at the public sessions of the Tariff Com- 
 mission of 1905-6 on this question of the reservation 
 of the trade of the West for Eastern Canada. Mr. 
 Simpson had appeared before the Commission at 
 Montreal in November, 1905, and Valleyfield in 
 December, 1905, to urge increased protection for the 
 cotton mills of Valleyfield and Montreal against com- 
 petition from Lancashire and New England. 
 
 * Cf. Speech by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at Ottawa, April 18. — 
 Globe, Toronto, April 19, 1908.
 
 ]6o THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Said Mr. Simpson at the Montreal convention of 
 the Manufacturers' Association : — 
 
 In the eastern part of Canada the manufacturers and 
 those dependent upon them, including the farmers in the 
 East, have, out of their pockets, paid millions of dollars 
 towards the opening up of the West. It was the money 
 of the East that bought the West in the first place.* It 
 was the money of the East that enabled the C.P.R. to be 
 built. It is the money of the East, very largely, that is 
 enabling the Grand Trunk Pacific to be built. Because, if 
 we have not actually found the money, it is our credit 
 that has found the money. We are told by politicians that 
 the tariff cannot be in any way altered, because the West 
 won't have it. We are faced, therefore, with this problem : 
 that after we have made the West — after we people in the 
 East have made the West — the West is going to refuse aid 
 to us. We have given them every chance of being. We 
 have made it possible for them to make large profits in 
 the growing of wheat. We have spent our money lavishly 
 in giving them the means by which their produce can be 
 taken to the markets of the Old Country, and, in return, 
 they are determined to make things so that here in the 
 East we cannot live.t 
 
 Much the same spirit, much the same manifesta- 
 tion of what Sir Richard Cartwright once stigmatised 
 as "the barbaric instinct of the protectionist mind,"i 
 
 * In 1869 the Dominion Government paid $300,000 to the Hudson 
 Bay Company for its rights over the land in the North-West. 
 
 t Industrial Canada, October, 1908. 
 
 I " Over a decade ago Sir Richard Cartwright stated that pro- 
 tection had cost the consumers of Canada more than France paid 
 Germany in indemnity after the Franco-Prussian war. Sir Richard 
 had excellent opportunities for judging the cost of the iniquity — 
 let us take him at his word. But vast as has been the monetary 
 loss, it is but a mere nothing compared with the moral loss. Think 
 of the moral atrophy that must exist when one section of the 
 business community openly states its desire to secure the right to 
 take from another section, under the aegis of a protective tariff, 
 as much as it can possibly aggregate unto itself. What a waste 
 of energy in perverted ideals — what a waste in misguided effort — 
 what a price we pay for protection — what a crime and iniquity the 
 system has proved itself to Canada ! Canada needs an awakening 
 on the price she is paying for this burden of protection. Let the 
 awakening come soon — let there be light." — L. E. Carp, "Wanted 
 — Imagination and a Conscience," parm atid Ranch Review, 
 Calgary, Nov. 5, 1910,
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM i6i 
 
 broke out at Vancouver in August, 1910, when the 
 manufacturers of lumber petitioned Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier for more protection. In particular they asked 
 the transfer, from the free list to the dutiable schedules, 
 of lumber of the class that has been described as 
 going into the building of the shanties and barns 
 of the homesteaders in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and 
 Alberta. They urged it on the ground that home- 
 steaders came into Canada to improve their condition ; 
 that most of them succeeded in so doing; and that 
 they were, therefore, not entitled to advantages under 
 the free list. 
 
 The pioneer settlement of the prairie provinces, read 
 the paragraphs in which it was urged that it was no 
 longer necessary nor expedient from the point of view of 
 the milling industry that boards and shingles should be 
 continued on the free list, was accomplished in the face 
 of much privation and hardship, and amid many discourage- 
 ments ; and lumber being a first requisite, it was the 
 commendable policy of the Government to see that it could 
 always be obtained at the lowest possible cost. 
 
 Conditions which existed a few years ago, however, 
 as to lumber supplies have altogether changed. Where the 
 settlers were dependent upon a few coast sawmills for their 
 supply of lumber, the lumber mills here have been very 
 largely augmented. Further, a great number of mills are 
 now being operated in the mountain districts of British 
 Columbia, whose output goes entirely to the prairies, and, 
 in addition to this, the spruce mills along the Saskatchewan 
 river are now furnishing upwards of 100,000,000 feet per 
 year to the prairies. 
 
 Conditions affecting immigration into and settlement of 
 our new districts are completely changed, and are now robbed 
 of their former terrors. 
 
 The majority of settlers who live in the Western agri- 
 cultural sections of our country for a few years become 
 independent, and in many cases wealthy, and those now 
 coming in are of a class which requires no special favours 
 or assistance. These immigrants are not paupers or semi- 
 paupers seeking a haven in our country from unhappy 
 conditions in their own, but are people of means and in- 
 L
 
 i62 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 telligence, coming to invest in the splendid opportunities 
 which are available in our unoccupied agricultural districts. 
 
 In view of the foregoing considerations, the lumber 
 manufacturers who have waited long and patiently for a 
 readjustment of the tariff, which would put them on a parity 
 with other industries, feel that the time has arrived when 
 their industry, the largest and most important one in British 
 Columbia, should no longer be singled out as it has been 
 to work under discriminating regulations for the parti- 
 cular benefit of other provinces of our Dominion.* 
 
 What the additional protection urged by the 
 lumbermen would mean for the people of the prairie 
 provinces was explained to Sir Wilfrid Laurier a week 
 later, when he was waited upon by a deputation of 
 trade unionists representing the Trades and Labour 
 Council of New Westminster, British Columbia. 
 
 "We notice," said the trade unionists in their 
 memorial to the Premier, "that you have been inter- 
 viewed by representatives from the British Columbia 
 Shingle and Lumber Manufacturers' Association, 
 Limited. This association, their assertions notwith- 
 standing, practically control the lumber production of 
 the province, and therefore have all the essentials of 
 a trust. The members of this trust have practically 
 grabbed all the available timber land of the province. 
 When they discovered that they had grabbed more 
 than they could utilise within the life of their leases 
 they succeeded in securing from the Provincial 
 Government the changing of their leases from twenty- 
 one years to perpetuity, and if they prevail on your 
 Government to give them the protection they desire, 
 their trust will also have absolute control of the supply 
 of lumber to the citizens of Canada as far east as 
 Winnipeg." f 
 
 * News Advertise); Vancouver, Aug. i8, 1910. 
 
 + Memorial from Trades and Labour Council of New West- 
 minster, presented by Mr. A. B. Christie and Mr. Frank Kerwin, 
 to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Aug. 23. — Province, Vancouver, Aug. 24, 
 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 163 
 
 All protection is in its nature oligarchical.* It 
 does not benefit the people. It benefits a small 
 group of people. f The New Feudalism in Canada 
 exists and is organised and equipped to exploit; and 
 nothing could more adequately exemplify the spirit 
 in which the tariff division of the New Feudalism, 
 with the aid of combines and mergers and gentle- 
 men's agreements, would exploit to the full the grain 
 growers of the prairie provinces than the outburst 
 of the disgruntled stove manufacturer at the Toronto 
 convention of the Canadian Manufacturers' Associa- 
 tion in 1907, the utterances of Mr. Louis Simpson 
 at the convention of 1908, and the plea of the men of 
 the lumber mill industry which was pressed on Sir 
 Wilfrid Laurier at Vancouver in August, 19 10. 
 
 * "To think," said the Grain Growers^ Guide (Feb. g, igio) 
 in commenting on the speech of Mr. G. M. Murray, secretary of 
 the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, at a banquet at Winnipeg 
 on Feb. 7, 1910, " that 2,500 men in Canada claim that they are 
 able to make the grass grow in the streets of this whole great 
 country is something for every sane man to consider. It is the 
 most astounding challenge that has been hurled at the public in 
 many years. The contemplation of such a situation may well, 
 in the words of Paul Kruger, 'stagger humanity.' And yet, the 
 more we consider it, the more we realise how true that state- 
 ment is. The manufacturers realised that without organisation 
 Governments would pay little heed to them. It is worthy of notice 
 that the organised manufacturers have no political leanings. What- 
 ever party is in power is the one they go after." 
 
 t Cf. Sir Hugh Bell, "Tariff and Wages," Yorkshire Post, 
 April 28, 1908.
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 THE farmers' organisations OF ONTARIO AND 
 THE PRAIRIE PROVINCES 
 
 "In Canada the time is opportune for a revival of Liberalism 
 both in Parliament and among the people. Our public men and 
 the leaders and moulders of public opinion throughout Canada 
 would do well were they to have their own views clarified and 
 their grip on principles strengthened. They would then be ready 
 and they would be willing to lead in a campaign of ideas that 
 would lift our politics out of the ruck of party squabbles and the 
 lust for spoils, and make political service attractive to high-minded 
 and strong-brained young men." — Globe, Toronto, Feb. 2, 1905. 
 
 " Possibly no single event or condition in rural life during the 
 history of the province of Saskatchewan has stood out more 
 conspicuously than the successful and efficient manner in which 
 farmers have organised in self-interest and self-protection during 
 recent years. It was in 1901 that this spirit of organisation first 
 manifested itself under the banner of the Grain Growers' Association ; 
 and gradually but surely this organisation has become stronger, 
 more alert and more widespread, until to-day it has become a 
 mighty force in the land, admired by its friends and dreaded by 
 its enemies. Very largely at least, through the efforts and struggles 
 of this association, farmers are to-day receiving a price for their 
 grain nearer Fort William prices than at any previous period in 
 our experience. During the last ten years a constant evolution has 
 been taking place in the betterment and uplift of rural conditions." — 
 Mr. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan, 
 at convention of agricultural societies, Regina, Jan. 26, 1910. 
 
 The farmers and grain growers organisations of 
 Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, 
 which in 1910 are in revolt against the New 
 Feudalism, have been variously described both in 
 Canada and in England. While Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 was still in the West, and still receiving deputations 
 from the grain growers protesting against the tariff 
 of 1907, the Ottawa correspondent of the Times 
 cabled to London* that "the farmers deputations to 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier had no special significance." f 
 
 * Aug. 17, 1910. 
 
 t " Whose views would have ' special significance ' if those of 
 Western Canadian farmers have none? For one thing, they are
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 165 
 
 Colonel George T. Denisori; long the champion 
 of the ultra-imperialist cause in Toronto,* in a letter 
 to the Globe, described the movement as one of 
 farmers who desired to escape their fair share of taxa- 
 tion ; and at the convention of the Canadian Manu- 
 facturers' Association, at Vancouver, in September, 
 1 9 10, the revolt in the prairie provinces was stigma- 
 tised as "a sectional, parochial little meeting of grain 
 growers." f 
 
 Only in the provinces which lie between the 
 Ottawa River and the Rocky Mountains are farmers 
 and grain growers organised. In these four provinces 
 there are (in 1910) six distinct organisations. Taking 
 them in the order of their establishment, they are : 
 (i) The Dominion Grange of Ontario, which has 
 been in existence since 1880; (2) the Saskatchewan 
 Grain Growers' Association, established in 1901 ; (3) 
 the Manitoba Grain Growers' Association, established 
 in 1903; (4) the Alberta Society of Equity, organised 
 in 1904, the Alberta Farmers' Association, organised 
 in 1905 (two organisations which were merged in 1909 
 
 self-respecting in their demands. They aslc for neither preference 
 nor privilege. All they want is a fair chance and no favours. 
 They beg no preference for their products in the markets of 
 Britain. All they ask is that the Government ease their tariff 
 burdens, and secure to them a square deal from the elevator and 
 transportation companies. Presently Canada will discover that the 
 balance of political power has shifted to the west of Lake Superior. 
 Over all that vast area, from the Great Lakes to the Rockies, the 
 farmers will dominate. They will be the power behind their pro- 
 vincial legislatures. They will be a compelling voice in the Federal 
 Parliament. If misrepresenting their opinions in England would 
 be ' a perilous game ' for the Empire, it would be even more a 
 piece of madness for political leaders in Canada to underrate the 
 range and power of free trade sentiment. For the Liberal party 
 it would mean inevitable disaster." — Globe, Toronto, Aug. 9, 1910. 
 
 * Cf. " The Struggle for Imperial Unity : Recollections and 
 Experiences," Colonel G. T. Denison, 1909. 
 
 t Newspaper talk was not at all desirable, in the view of Mr. 
 W. C. Phillips, of Montreal. He went on to remark that the 
 convention should not take notice of the utterances of a " sectional, 
 parochial little meeting of grain growers." — Report of discussion 
 at convention of Canadian Manufacturers' Association, on " Revolt 
 in Grain Growing Provinces against the Tariff," Daily Frovince, 
 Vancouver, Sept. 21, 1910.
 
 i66 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 into the United Farmers of Alberta) ; (5) the Inter- 
 Provincial Council of Grain Growers, organised at 
 Saskatoon in 1908; and (6) the Canadian Council of 
 Agriculture, with headquarters at Toronto, which 
 came into existence in 1909. 
 
 Ninety granges in Ontario are of the Dominion 
 Grange, and there are now also affiliated with it the 
 Farmers' Association of Ontario * and a number of 
 farmers' clubs and dairymen's and stock breeders' 
 associations. Three thousand Ontario agriculturists 
 are in this way connected with the grange move- 
 ment and associated in the revolt against the tariff 
 of 1907. 
 
 The Dominion Grange did not join forces on the 
 tariff question with the grain growers until Septem- 
 ber, 191 o. The demonstrations against the tariff 
 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in the West were 
 organised by the grain growers ; but the Ontario 
 granges sent deputations to the Tariff Commission of 
 1905-6 to urge that there be no curtailment of the 
 British preference, and that as regards woollens the 
 preference be put back to the level of 1904; to insist 
 that there be no increase in duties in compliance with 
 the demand of *^he Canadian Manufacturers' Associa- 
 tion for duties on the Dingley level ; and also to pro- 
 test against a re-enactment of the law bestowing 
 bounties on the iron and steel industry. 
 
 Between the revision of the tariff in 1907 and the 
 revolt of the grain growers in July and August, 1910, 
 the granges of Ontario directed their political activity 
 chiefly against the iron and steel bounties, which were 
 extended for another four years in 1906, and against 
 combines and mergers to enable manufacturers 
 more securely to exact the full statutory toll of the 
 tariff. 
 
 The measure of success attending the activities of 
 
 * Cf. Globe, Toronto, Sept. 5, 1907.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 167 
 
 the granges of Ontario at the time the Tariff Commis- 
 sion was on its rounds, and also the movement 
 against bounties for iron and steel and mergers and 
 combines in every industry protected by the tariff, 
 have been described earlier in these pages. Only one 
 other aspect of the activity of the Ontario granges 
 from 1907 to 1910 remains to be noticed. Early in 
 1910 Mr. E. C. Drury, president of the Dominion 
 Grange, acting for that organisation, published a 
 letter in England stating the attitude of the grange 
 towards the preference for Great Britain in the 
 Dominion tariff, and also towards the movement for 
 a protective tariff in England with preferences for 
 grain and food-stuffs exported from Canada. The 
 letter, which was addressed to Mr. Lloyd George, 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, was as follow^s : 
 
 It is brought to my notice that in your campaign your 
 opponents are using the statement that the colonies are 
 demanding preferential treatment for their foodstuffs in the 
 British markets. As head of the Dominion Grange, an 
 organisation of farmers covering Ontario, and in affiliation 
 with farmers' organisations in other provinces, I am in a 
 position to speak with authority for the farming class of 
 Canada, and I would desire most emphatically to contradict 
 the above statement as far as the farmers of Canada are 
 concerned. We are not troubling ourselves as to preferential 
 treatment in the British market, which we realise would 
 work harm to the consuming masses in Britain, and would 
 ultimately injure us by injuring our market. On the other 
 hand, our organisations have taken a stand favouring the 
 admission of British goods free of duty into Canada, both 
 as an act of patriotism toward England and as affording 
 us some relief from the oppressions of combines and trusts 
 which have grown up in the shelter of our protective tariff 
 among our manufacturers. The cry for preferential treat- 
 ment in Britain, so far as Canada is concerned, originated 
 with our protectionist manufacturers, who desire the triumph 
 of protection in England to strengthen their position here ; 
 but the preference in England they would be willing to 
 give British manufacturers would be a sham — a duty lower
 
 i68 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 than that given to other countrieSj but still high enough 
 to give control of Canadian markets to Canadian manu- 
 facturers, as they have frequently affirmed by resolutions 
 in their association. The farmers of Canada are engaged 
 in a life-and-death struggle with the combines which have 
 grown up under our tariff, and no greater evil could befall 
 them than the triumph of protectionism in England, as it 
 could not help but strengthen the hands of the protectionist 
 element here.* 
 
 All the organisations in the grain growing pro- 
 vinces are of much more recent origin than the 
 granges of Ontario. Economic and social conditions, 
 and also transportation problems, in the West are 
 different from those of Ontario ; and it has followed 
 that the grain growers' associations have had wider 
 aims than the granges in the older province. The 
 associations in each of the three provinces west of 
 Lake Superior came into existence to remedy con- 
 ditions burdensome to grain growers which date 
 back as far as 1886. They were organised (i) to free 
 grain growers from the exactions of elevator owners 
 at shipping points and also at Fort William and 
 Port Arthur,! (2) to relieve grain growers from the 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, Jan. 15, 1910. 
 
 t " No sooner was the Canadian Pacific Railway ready to trans- 
 port the grain grown in the Western provinces than they made 
 regulations giving standard elevator owners full monopoly of the 
 grain trade, so that, no matter what quantity of grain a farmer 
 produced, in order to get it to the consuming market he had to 
 pass it through an elevator. The natural outcome of such conditions 
 was that the owners of the elevators could get together and dictate 
 the terms on which they received grain for storage and shipment." 
 — " How the Monopoly Began," Grain Growers' Guide, Nov. 10, 
 1909. 
 
 " Mr. D. C. Cameron, president of the Rat Portage Lumber 
 Company, has complained to the Railway Commission that the 
 Canadian Northern Railway Company has systematically handicapped 
 his firm by refusing to transport sawlogs from Rainy River to 
 St. Boniface in quantities sufficient to keep the sawmill there in 
 operation for more than one-third of each year, and that the logs 
 are rotting in the woods and on the railway sidings. Mr. Cameron 
 also informed the Commission that when he appealed to Mr. D. D. 
 Mann personally for relief he was told bluntly that he would get 
 no better service in the future than he had received in the past.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 169 
 
 exactions of a combine which existed among grain 
 buyers at Winnipeg,* and (3) to work for lower rail- 
 way rates from interior shipping points to the railway 
 terminals on Lake Superior, whence grain from the 
 West is carried by water to Buffalo or Montreal. f 
 
 "As the farmers were gradually getting over the 
 pioneer stage of farming, and beginning to give more 
 time and study to these questions," reads a brief 
 history of the grain growers' movement, J "they soon 
 recognised what other producing classes had accom- 
 plished through organisation^ and realised that relief 
 
 Mr. Mann is vice-president of the Canadian Northern Company, 
 and presumably he speaks for it with authority on such a matter 
 of policy as the one raised by Mr. Cameron. It appears to be 
 Mr. Mann's theory that the Canadian Northern Railway is the 
 absolute property of the Canadian Northern Company." — " A Serious 
 Charge," Globe, Toronto, Sept. 26, 1910. 
 
 * " The grain trade of Western Canada is controlled by members 
 of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, which held a charter granted 
 by the provincial legislature of Manitoba. The powers granted 
 under that charter were of such a character that they could be 
 used to form a monopoly of the grain trade to the members of 
 the Exchange." — Grain Growers' Guide, Nov. 9, 1909. 
 
 t " The annual statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway Com- 
 pany for the year ending June 30, 1910, contains some gratifying 
 facts for shareholders. It is also replete with warnings against 
 the folly of continuing the policy of railway subsidising which has 
 proved such a fat thing for the first of our transcontinental railways. 
 The total earnings of the company for the year were nearly 
 $95,000,000. The surplus over earnings, fixed charges, pension 
 fund and steamship replacement account was $26,250,000. After 
 paying dividends of 63^2 per cent, on common stock, much of 
 which was secured by present holders at 25 cents on the dollar, 
 there is a net surplus for the year of nearly $14,000,000. The 
 Canadian Pacific Railway has been a veritable gold mine for the 
 promoters. It is also a valuable experience for the people of 
 Canada who have more than paid for the property which the 
 promoters now own." — Sun, Toronto, Sept. 21, 1910. 
 
 " The great bulk of these (Canadian Pacific Railway) piled-up 
 surplus-capped mountains of earnings consists of exorbitant freight 
 rates. The West is levied upon more heavily than the East to 
 provide these treasure mountains for the Canadian Pacific Railway. 
 Surely the time has come for action to compel some nearer approach 
 to a square deal." — Free Press, Winnipeg, Oct. 28, 1910. 
 
 " The question of Western freight rates has been raised, and it 
 will not down till they have been either justified or reduced. This 
 is the biggest problem before the people of Western Canada." — 
 Industrial Canada, October, 19 10. 
 
 + Grain Growers'" Guide, Nov. 10, 1909.
 
 170 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 from existing conditions could only be secured by 
 the farmers organising, and in this way becoming 
 articulate and able to present their views directly to 
 the Government. A meeting of the farmers of Sas- 
 katchewan was called at Indian Head, which resulted 
 in the formation of the Grain Growers' Association 
 of Saskatchewan. No sooner was their action made 
 known to the farmers of Manitoba than a similar 
 association was organised in Manitoba. Shortly after 
 the farmers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan had 
 organised, a branch of the American Society of 
 Equity was organised in Alberta. A little later the 
 Alberta Farmers' Association was organised, also in 
 Alberta. The two latter continued to gain strength 
 until the winter of 1909, when they merged into one 
 organisation called the United Farmers of Alberta." 
 
 The first of the associations — that which came 
 into existence at Indian Head, Saskatchewan — was 
 formed only in December, 1901 ;* but the grievances 
 of which the grain growers complained were burden- 
 some and common to all three provinces. New 
 recruits came in quickly as the usefulness of organi- 
 sation became manifest; and in July and August, 
 1910, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in the prairie 
 provinces, there were, of the Manitoba association, 
 9,000 members in 196 local associations; in Sas- 
 katchewan, 6,000 members in 263 local associations; 
 
 * " When it is considered that this great organisation of farmers 
 has become welded solidly in less than nine years, the scope of 
 development may be appreciated. The first meeting to organise a 
 grain growers' association was held at Indian Head, Dec. i8, 
 igoi, with twenty persons present. Like the heavy train which 
 makes a start with difificulty and gathers speed slowly, the Grain 
 Growers and the United Farmers have progressed until they have 
 gathered a momentum that is carrying them along at record speed. 
 The adage that nothing succeeds like success is working out, and 
 where it was once necessary to press farmers to join they are 
 now coming forward voluntarily and eagerly. There is a magnificent 
 future in store for the association, and possibilities for justice and 
 reform that no man can forecast." — Grain Growers^ Guide, April 6, 
 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 171 
 
 and of the United Farmers of Alberta, 8,500 members 
 in 183 local unions. 
 
 The movement for the formation of an Intcr- 
 Provincial Grain Growers' Council began with the 
 United Farmers of Alberta early in 1908. The grain 
 growers' associations of Manitoba and Saskatche- 
 wan promptly came into the confederation, which is 
 composed of the three executive committees of the 
 provincial organisations. Towards the end of 1909 
 the Canadian Council of Agriculture, which developed 
 out of the grange movement in Ontario, came into 
 existence. The Western associations at once realised 
 the value of an organisation Dominion-wide in its 
 scope and aims; and in the winter of 1909-10 all the 
 three prairie province organisations associated them- 
 selves with the Canadian Council of Agriculture,* 
 which consists of the executives of the Dominion 
 Grange of Ontario, the Manitoba Grain Growers' 
 Association, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers' Asso- 
 ciation, and the United Farmers of Alberta. 
 
 The three Western organisations drew many new 
 members into their ranks after the demonstrations 
 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in the West; but, 
 taking the membership of the associations and of 
 
 * " The objects of the association shall be : (a) To organise the 
 farm population of the Dominion for the study of social and economic 
 problems having a bearing on the happiness and material prosperity 
 of the people. (d) To collect such material from scientific and 
 literary sources, the annals of class movements, and the records of 
 legislative enactments in our own and other countries, as are 
 necessary for the proper information of our people, and disseminate 
 the same, (c) To formulate our demands for legislation and present 
 them through the officers of the association to the notice of Parlia- 
 ment and our different legislative bodies. (d) To encourage the 
 entry of our farmers into active membership in one or other of 
 the political associations according to individual predisposition as 
 a means to make the political parties, without distinction, responsible 
 to and representative of the demands of the people who form the 
 bulk of the population, (e) To urge the adoption of co-operative 
 methods by our members (but outside our association) in the purchase 
 and sale of commodities, that equity may be established in the 
 business of exchange." — Grain Growers' Guide, Dec. 22, 1909.
 
 172 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 the granges of Ontario at the figure at which it stood 
 at that time, it will be seen that 26,500 well-organised 
 farmers, with the Sun, of Toronto, and the Grain 
 Growers' Guide, of Winnipeg, as their journalistic 
 spokesmen, are of the revolt in 1910 against the 
 National Policy of the Laurier Government and the 
 statutory privileges which that policy bestows on the 
 tariff beneficiaries' order of the New Feudalism. 
 
 Only two of the six organisations — the Inter- 
 Provincial Council of Grain Growers (established in 
 1908) and the Canadian Council of Agriculture 
 (organised in 1909) — had had no part in agitations 
 against the National Policy previous to 19 10, for 
 grain growers' associations in all the prairie provinces 
 sent deputations to the Tariff Commission of 1905-6, 
 which took almost exactly the same attitude towards 
 the revision of the tariff as did the granges of 
 Ontario. 
 
 Between 1905 and 1910 the grain growers' asso- 
 ciations were not so continuously active against the 
 National Policy as the granges of Ontario. The 
 grain growers were then engaged in their struggle 
 with the grain buyers' combination and with the 
 elevator monopolists. They broke the power of the 
 grain buyers by a co-operative organisation formed 
 within the grain growers' associations, and in Mani- 
 toba they secured the enactment of a law under 
 which, on petition from a majority of grain growers 
 in any township, the Provincial Government must 
 provide elevator accommodation adjacent to the 
 railway.* 
 
 So far, in the solution of what are exclusively 
 grain-growing province problems, the grain growers' 
 most remarkable achievement has been in marketing 
 
 * " Latest returns from the Manitoba Elevator Commission show 
 that twenty-one elevators have been acquired by purchase, while 
 ten are being erected." — Grain Growers' Guide, Aug. 17, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 173 
 
 grain. They are no longer at the mercy of the grain 
 buyers, for in 1905 a company was organised, on a 
 co-operative basis, to handle the business previously 
 a monopoly of the grain buyers of Winnipeg. There 
 were in 1910, 9,000 shareholders in the Grain Growers' 
 Grain Company. All three provinces were repre- 
 sented among the shareholders. The shares, which 
 are of $25 each, can be held only by farmers, farmers' 
 wives, and farmers' sons over eighteen years of age. 
 No person can hold more than four shares, and no 
 shareholder has more than one vote. During the 
 season of 1909-10 the company handled 16,000,000 
 bushels of grain, chartered its own steamers from 
 Montreal, and distributed $95,000 of profits.* 
 
 Resulting from this success in the handling of 
 grain, a smaller company, similarly organised, came 
 into existence in 1908 to start the Grain-Groivers' 
 Guide, a journal that serves the grain-growers' move- 
 micnt much in the same spirit and the same capacity 
 as the Co-operative News, of Manchester, has served 
 the co-operative movement in England since 187 1. 
 Until August, 1909, the Guide was issued monthly, 
 and was little more than a grain trade circular. Then 
 it became a weekly journal. Its scope and aims were 
 enlarged, and at the time of the revolt of the West 
 against the National Policy it was going every week 
 into the homes of twenty thousand farmers and grain 
 
 * " A provision in the rules of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, 
 which compelled all members to charge i cent per bushel com- 
 mission on all grain bought or sold, gave the Grain Growers' 
 Grain Company a great chance to make a successful start. The 
 promoters of the movement recognised that if the members of the 
 organisation would consign their grain to their own agency in 
 sufficient volume, the i cent per bushel commission would not 
 only pay all expenses, but would provide a fund that could be 
 used for extending the organisation and inaugurating a campaign 
 of education without any cost whatever to the members. Their 
 anticipation in this respect has been amply justified, as, without 
 the revenue derived from this source, which is a fixture, the 
 organisation could not be in the position it is in to-day." — Grain 
 Groiuers^ Guide, Nov. lo, 1909.
 
 174 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 growers in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan 
 and Alberta. 
 
 From the Dominion Government in 1908 the grain 
 growers secured an amendment to the Manitoba Grain 
 Act of 1900 — an enactment of the Parliament at 
 Ottawa — which gives a grain grower the same right 
 to a car in shipping his products as is conceded under 
 the railway code to the producer of any other com- 
 modity; and following this success at Ottawa the 
 associations petitioned the Dominion Government to 
 take over the terminal elevators at the lake ports, and 
 operate them in the public interest.* 
 
 With this series of successes secured the associa- 
 tions in all three provinces next turned their attention 
 to the tariff of 1907. First they assailed the duties 
 on w^ire, which range from 10 to 25 per cent. ; next 
 they demanded that all farm implements should be 
 admitted duty free ; and it was also urged that the 
 Dominion Government should accept the offer of 
 reciprocity in farm implements embodied in the 
 Payne-Aldrich tariff enacted at Washington in 
 August, 1909. f About this time it began to be com- 
 plained that farm machinery made in Ontario was 
 sold in Great Britain at prices from 10 to 30 per cent, 
 lower than similar machinery from the same factories 
 was sold in the prairie provinces. J 
 
 Next came the astounding boast of Mr. G. M. 
 Murray, secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' 
 Association at Winnipeg, § that the Canadian Manu- 
 facturers' Association was "like a young giant 
 ignorant of its own power " ; that by the exercise of 
 its power "it could if it chose bring several millions 
 
 * Cf. " How the Monopoly Began," Grain Growers' Guide, 
 Nov. 10, 1909. 
 
 + Cf. Annual convention, United Farmers of Alberta, Jan. 19-21, 
 1910. — Grain Growers' Guide, Feb. 2, 1910. 
 
 X Convention of Saskatchewan Grain Growers at Prince Albert, 
 Feb. 9-1 1, 1910. — Grain Growers' Guide, Feb. 16, 1910. 
 
 § Feb. 9, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 175 
 
 of people to the verge of starvation and paralyse the 
 industry of the whole Dominion."* Soon after this 
 audacious challenge, which will be as memorable in 
 the tariff history of Canada as the Haman's gallows 
 outburst at Toronto in i907,t there was the announce- 
 ment that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was to make a political 
 progress through the West at the end of the Parlia- 
 mentary session of 1909-10; and the result of this 
 series of developments was that from January to 
 August, 19 10, the tariff was more assailed in the grain 
 growing provinces than at any time since Mr. Clifford 
 Sifton was leading the revolt against the agricultural 
 implements schedule in the Conservative tariff of 
 1894, ^nd pledging the Liberal party up to the hilt 
 to "wipe off the statute book the villainous protection 
 policy " which had stunted the prosperity of the whole 
 country, and "taken the heart's blood out of the 
 people of Manitoba." 
 
 * " We wish that every one of the 800,000 farmers in Canada 
 could have this statement, made by the secretary of the Manu- 
 facturers' Association, to consider. It will be well to have it 
 printed in flaming letters and hung in every farm house in Canada, 
 from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It would be an interesting thing 
 for the farmer and his family to read whenever they purchased a 
 binder or a plough or a carriage or other manufactured articles, 
 the price of which was enhanced by a high tariff. Then the 
 farmer would consider what keeps the tariff up and who benefits 
 by the tariff. The tariff on these manufactured articles, which 
 the farmer is compelled to buy, is kept there mainly by the 
 influence of, and for the benefit of, these 2,500 men represented 
 by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. It would be still more 
 interesting matter for the farmers when they learned that these 
 articles for which they paid high prices, undoubtedly enhanced 
 through the influence of the manufacturer, were being sold in 
 foreign countries at much lower prices than in Canada." — Grain 
 Growers^ Guide, Feb. 9, 1910. 
 
 t Old Haman built a gallows once full fifty cubits high, 
 On which he planned to hang a chap whose name was Mordecai ! 
 But something busted up the scheme ; the King played fast 
 
 and loose, 
 And when the hanging up was done, 'twas Haman in the noose 
 These facts we merely mention here for Mr. Gurney's aid. 
 He wants a tariff just as high as Haman's gallows made. 
 If history repeats itself, say, wouldn't it be sad 
 Should Mr. Gurney get what put poor Haman to the bad? 
 
 ^—Star, Toronto, Sept. 27, 1907
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 SIR WILFRID LAURIER OF 1 893 AND OF I9IO 
 
 " The farmers of Manitoba have been forced to pay tribute to the 
 manufacturers of the East. Manitoba would hail with joy the day 
 when it would be freed from the incubus of the National Policy." — 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, National Liberal Convention, June 21, 1893. 
 
 " I believe that the people of the North-West will respond to this 
 policy, and will express their confidence in our leader. We hope and 
 trust that Mr. Laurier will take the opportunity to visit the Hope of 
 Canada, the great North-West, in the near future. To see and to 
 hear our leader is to have confidence in him." — Mr. J. H. Ross, 
 Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories, 
 National Liberal Convention, June 21, 1893. 
 
 " Laurier is coming West to complete his education, and the grain 
 growers will play a goodly part in this work." — Grain Growers^ 
 Guide, June 29, 1910. 
 
 " I do not know that I ever enjoyed a trip more. It has been like 
 a revelation and an education." — Sir Wilfrid Laurier at Golden, 
 British Columbia, Aug. 15, 1910. 
 
 In response to the invitation from Manitoba and the 
 North-West, in response to the invitation extended 
 in such cordial terms at the National Liberal Con- 
 vention of 1893, Sir Wilfrid Laurier visited the West 
 in the autumn of 1894. It was then that he made 
 the memorable speech at Winnipeg which was so 
 frequently brought to his attention when he was in 
 the prairie provinces in the summer of 1910. Recall- 
 ing the attitude of the Liberal party towards pro- 
 tection, and in particular the declaration against 
 protection in the Ottawa programme, Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier, at Winnipeg, on Sept. 2, 1894, said : 
 
 "We stand for freedom. I denounce the policy of pro- 
 tection as bondage — yea, bondage; and I refer to bondage 
 in the same manner in which American slavery was bondage. 
 Not in the same degree, perhaps, but in the same manner. 
 In the same manner the people of Canada, the inhabitants 
 of the city of Winnipeg especially, are toiling for a master 
 
 176
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 177 
 
 who takes away not every cent of profit but a very large 
 percentage, a very large portion of your earnings for which 
 you sweat and toil." 
 
 Much had happened between this stirring speech 
 at Winnipeg in 1894 ^^'^^ the announcement in the 
 Grain Growers' Guide of June 29, 1910, that the 
 Premier was coming to the West. After being con- 
 tinuously in opposition from 1878, after having been 
 for eighteen years the steadfast and vigorous oppo- 
 nents of the New Feudalism as then aUied with the 
 Conservative party, the Liberals, with Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier as their leader, were returned to power at 
 the general election of June, 1896. 
 
 Great were the expectations popularly entertained 
 all over the Dominion of long over-due reforms that 
 would follow the change in Government. Great as 
 these expectations were, they were amply warranted 
 by the speeches and votes of the Liberals in oppo- 
 sition, and, above all, by the many pledges of reform 
 embodied in the Liberal programme of 1893. The 
 opportunity of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal 
 party after the general election of 1896 was greater 
 and more obvious than that of any progressive party 
 that ever attained to power in England, in Canada, 
 or in any of the other of the oversea dominions. The 
 opportunity that then presented itself to Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier, and to Sir Richard Cartwright, the ablest 
 of his lieutenants — intellectually perhaps the ablest 
 man ever associated with the Liberal party in 
 Dominion politics — was greater even than that of 
 Grey, Durham, Russell, Althorp and Graham when 
 the Wellington administration collapsed at the open- 
 ing of the Parliamentary session of 1830. 
 
 No extension of the Parliamentary franchise was 
 necessary in Canada in 1896.* But the grip of the 
 
 * " I am glad to say that though Canada is suffering many ills 
 and woes, they do not arise from constitutional defects." — Sir W. 
 Laurier, National Liberal Convention, 1893.
 
 178 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 tariff beneficiaries order of the New Feudalism 
 needed to be loosened from the Parliamentary insti- 
 tutions of the Dominion.* The Senate was in need 
 of reform ,- for its only service to the Dominion was 
 that it added to the political patronage of the Govern- 
 ment, and enabled it to repay subscriptions for 
 campaign expenses and to provide for party workers 
 who failed of election to the House of Commons. f 
 Economy was needed in Dominion expenditure. J 
 Reforms were necessary to rectify gerrymandering of 
 the constituencies, and also to ensure purity of elec- 
 tions.! Exploiters of railway subsidies needed 
 warning off the Dominion Treasury.il One-half the 
 
 * " The ills of Canada to-day are not constitutional. They are 
 altogether of an economic nature." — Sir W. Laurier, National Liberal 
 Convention, 1893. 
 
 + " The Senate as now constituted is the weakest point in our con- 
 stitution." — Sir Oliver Mowat, Chairman, National Liberal Conven- 
 tion, 1893. 
 
 " The present constitution of the Senate is inconsistent with the 
 federal principle in our system of government, and is in other respects 
 defective, as it makes the Senate independent of the people, and 
 uncontrolled by the public opinion of the country, and should be so 
 amended as to bring it into harmony with the principles of popular 
 government." — Ottawa Liberal programme, 1893. 
 
 " Liberals remember how they resented the stuffing of the 
 Senate prior to 1896 with Conservatives, and they are keenly desirous 
 that the party shall not leave office without making an honest effort 
 to mend the system of choosing Senators." — Globe, Toronto, Nov. 8, 
 1910. 
 
 \ " We cannot but view with alarm the large increase of the public 
 debt and of the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion, 
 and the consequent undue taxation of the people under the Govern- 
 ments that have been continuously in power since 1878, and we 
 demand the strictest economy in the administration of the govern- 
 ment of the country." — Resolution, National Liberal Convention, 
 1893. 
 
 § " We are agreed as to the iniquity of such gerrymandering of 
 the constituencies and as to the iniquity and inconveniences of such 
 a Franchise Act as disgraces the Dominion statute book." — Sir Oliver 
 Mowat, National Liberal Convention, 1893. 
 
 " Again I denounce this other infamy, the system of gerrymander- 
 ing." — Sir W. Laurier, National Liberal Convention, 1893. 
 
 II " We arraign the Government for retaining in office a minister 
 of the Crown proved to have accepted very large contributions of 
 money for election purposes from the funds of a railway company, 
 which, while paying the political contributions to him, a member of 
 the Government, with one hand, was receiving Government subsidies 
 with the other." — Resolution at National Liberal Convention, 1893.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 179 
 
 daily press of the Dominion — the half that then 
 happened to be allied with the Conservative party — 
 needed freeing from the control of the Government.* 
 There was pressing need of a reform of the civil 
 service, of an end to the patronage list, and of an 
 immediate and thorough cleaning-up of all the 
 spending departments at Ottawa. f 
 
 These reforms were the tasks that confronted the 
 Laurier Government when it came into power in 
 1896. Greatest and most imperative, and the reform 
 most popularly demanded, was such a change in the 
 tariff as should relieve the people of the burdens and 
 the notorious corruption of the National Policy of 
 the Conservatives, J a relief that could only come with 
 the ending of the close connection between the New 
 Feudalism and the political party in control of the 
 Government at Ottawa. 
 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier's opportunity was greater 
 than that of Earl Grey in 1830; and there were no 
 
 *" Here in Canada we have a Government which does not hesitate 
 deliberately to poison and corrupt the very sources of information 
 from which alone the ordinary voter can learn how public affairs are 
 being administered, and whether he be well or ill served by those to 
 whom he must perforce entrust the guardianship of his interests ; 
 and I say that of all the corrupt acts of the Government, of all the 
 signs of the degradation and debasement of public opinion which are 
 everywhere manifest, there is not one act so fraught with evil conse- 
 quences, not one sign so significant of degradation, as the manner 
 in which the public press has been openly and systematically 
 debauched year after year, with the full knowledge and apparently the 
 full approbation of almost every class of the well-to-do supporters 
 of the Government, and with very few evidences of any great dis- 
 approval even on the part of those who were not its supporters." — 
 Sir R. Cartwright, 1893. 
 
 t " The Convention deplores the gross corruption in the management 
 and expenditure of public moneys which for years past has existed 
 under the rule of the Conservative party, and the revelations of which 
 by the different Parliamentary committees of inquiry have brought 
 disgrace upon the fair name of Canada." — Resolution, National 
 Liberal Convention, 1893. 
 
 t " I have only to say that you now go before the people with such 
 proofs as I think were never laid before any community in the world, 
 as to the results that have followed the system of protection, and 
 of the corruption which has prevailed in Canada for so many years." 
 — Sir R. Cartwright, National Liberal Convention, 1893.
 
 i8o THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 such obstacles to his making the fullest use of his 
 splendid opportunity as there were when Earl Grey 
 was confronted with the task of reforming Parlia- 
 mentary representation. But there did exist the 
 bargain of June, 1896, with the protected manufac- 
 turers of Toronto. The New Feudalism, between 
 1894 ^^d the general election of 1896, had realised 
 that the Conservative party was at the end of its 
 tether. Conservative politicians at Ottawa were 
 quarrelling among themselves. They were openly 
 stigmatising each other as traitors. They were dis- 
 trustful and weary of each other; and, more serious 
 still, from the point of view of the New Feudalism 
 that had been using them since 1879, the country 
 was manifestly weary of the National Policy and of 
 the political party that had fastened the National 
 Policy on the Dominion. 
 
 The embarrassments of the Conservative party 
 had made it necessary to delay to the last moment 
 the general election of 1896. With that election im- 
 pending the New Feudalism was confronted with a 
 crisis of the kind which, according to Dr. Macphail, 
 can alone bring about changes in the Government at 
 Ottawa. "We are living," he wrote in 1909, "under 
 a Government of an interested class, that find a party 
 in power and keep it there, until it becomes too cor- 
 rupt to be kept there any longer, when it seizes upon 
 the other party and proceeds to corrupt it." 
 
 Dr. Macphail here accurately describes what hap- 
 pened on the eve of the general election of 1896. The 
 New Feudalism knows no politics but the politics 
 of business — politics that are aimed at its own 
 aggrandisement and at strengthening its entrench- 
 ments and its outworks.* The Liberals in 1896, going 
 
 *"We all concur in everything Mr. Hendry said with regard 
 to protection, and it is perhaps unnecessary, therefore, for me to 
 take up much of your time in further argument upon this subject.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM i8i 
 
 to the country as they did on the Ottawa programme, 
 and under poHtical conditions more favourable to 
 them than at any general election since Confedera- 
 tion, did not need the aid and patronage of the New 
 Feudalism, which was much less powerful in 1896 
 than it is in 1910. 
 
 Some large campaign subscriptions might have 
 been withheld. One daily newspaper in the West, 
 which since 1896 has been an organ of the Laurier 
 Government, might to-day still be with the Con- 
 servatives, for it is understood to have come over to 
 the Government as part of the ante-election deal with 
 the New Feudalism. But Liberal success would not 
 have been jeopardised had the Liberal leaders bluntly 
 told the New Feudalism that their trust was in the 
 people of Canada, and that the New Feudalism might 
 stay with the political party responsible for its in- 
 ception and for the statutory and other special privi- 
 leges in its possession at this great crisis in the 
 history of the Dominion. 
 
 The Liberal politicians, however, were easily 
 captured for the New Feudalism. Relief from the 
 burdens of the National Policy, economy in the 
 expenditures of the Dominion Government, purity of 
 elections, reform of the Senate, a free press — in fact, 
 reforms in any department of political service — were 
 thereafter impossible for the Liberal party. 
 
 Statesmanship and public service cannot exist side 
 by side with the New Feudalism. The New Feudal- 
 ism has no use for statesmen. Its interests can be 
 adequately and subserviently safeguarded and ex- 
 
 In season and out of season, in favour and out of favour, liked or 
 disliked, I have always believed in protection, have always 'advocated 
 it, and will always continue to do so. I have no politics other than 
 protection, and I hope none of you have. If you have them, I think 
 you should sink them for the good of the Association, for protection 
 is the only politics the Association should recognise." — Mr. W. H. 
 Rowley, of Ottawa, President of CM. A., at Convention Banquetj 
 Vancouver, Sept. 22, 1910 — Industrial Canada, Oct., 1910.
 
 i82 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 tended only by politicians,* Politicians, as distinct 
 from statesmen, have consequently ruled at Ottawa 
 since 1896; and with the New Feudalism in easy 
 control there could be no fulfilment of the pledges of 
 the Liberal programme. A party cannot hold to 
 Liberalism and at the same time serve the New 
 Feudalism. f Hence any care for democracy or for 
 Liberalism was abandoned as soon as the Laurier 
 administration came into power. Liberalism was 
 similarly abandoned by the many daily newspapers 
 that then became thirled to the Laurier Government, J 
 and in the fourteen years that intervened between 
 the incoming of the Liberals and the Premier's tour 
 of the prairie provinces in 1910 every cause and every 
 principle advocated at the National Liberal Con- 
 vention had been repudiated or quietly abandoned. 
 
 The New Feudalism in 1910 has an immeasurably 
 tighter and stronger hold than it was able to secure 
 
 * " You can't have a square deal with a tariff. That is not what 
 a tariff is for. A tariff is expressly for the purpose of barring all 
 chances of a square deal. The tariff is for the interests, in order 
 that the interests may amass vast sums of money. And you may 
 be sure that it is never to the benefit of the rest of the people when 
 a law favours the interests." — Sir Alfred Mond, M.P., 1910. 
 
 t " Western Liberals at last seem to have discovered that Laurier, 
 leader of the Liberal Opposition of 1895, was a very different person 
 from the leader of the Liberal Government of 1910. He has revealed 
 himself in office. Never radical or progressive, he has become 
 curiously reactionary since he took the weight of government on his 
 shoulders. . . . Sir Wilfrid Laurier humbugs the people with smooth 
 phrases and alluring promises, and behind their backs bargains with 
 capitalists and corporations and manufacturers who contribute to the 
 campaign treasury. He has made Liberalism a cover for class 
 interests and class privileges ; and he maintains in Canada a system 
 of reactionary Toryism in patronage, in the handling of corporations, 
 and in the organisation of great national enterprises which would not 
 be tolerated in Great Britain itself or in any other portion of the 
 Empire." — Leader in the News of Toronto, Aug. 10, 1910 (Edited by 
 Dr. J. S. Willison, author of " Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal 
 Party : A Eulogistic Biography." 2 vols., 1903). 
 
 { " Practically every politician of any size in Canada has a news- 
 paper in his hip pocket. Our Canadian politicians are afraid of 
 independent criticism, v^-hich explains why they buy the newspapers 
 and hire editors to eulogise them." — Grain Growers' Guide, Oct. 26, 
 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 183 
 
 while the Conservatives were in power; and poUtics 
 at Ottawa, and Dominion politics generally, have 
 been as squalid during the last fourteen years* as at 
 any time between 1878 and 1896 — so squalid that 
 among the political capitals of English-speaking 
 peoples on the North American continent, Harris- 
 burg, Pennsylvania, is the only one that in this 
 respect can be compared with Ottawa. 
 
 * " The investigation being held into the vvorl^ing of some of the 
 Government departments at Ottawa has laid bare a carnival of graft 
 which is astounding." — Industrial Canada, January, 1909. 
 
 " The following is the text of the resolution adopted by the Argen- 
 teuil Liberal Convention at Lachute, on Thursday : ' Whereas, it 
 has become notorious that during the Federal bye-election of 1902 and 
 the Federal General Election of 1904, in the county of Argenteuil, 
 the grossest forms of electoral corruption were systematically em- 
 ployed, particularly in the direct payment of money for votes, and 
 in the payment during the election of prices far above the market 
 value for cattle, horses, and other farm products, of which in some 
 cases delivery was never taken ; and the payment of money to 
 electors as alleged compensation for the time lost in going to the 
 polls. Resolved : That this Liberal convention hereby appeals to the 
 respectable and moral forces in all sections of the county to take 
 active means to check and suppress the plague of electoral corruption, 
 whose demoralising effects are a menace to representative govern- 
 ment and to the growth of pure Canadian national sentiment.' " — 
 Witness, Montreal, Sept. 8, 1908.
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 SIR WILFRID LAURIER's TOUR OF THE WEST 
 
 " Have you seen a flotilla of ships of all sizes riding at anchor in 
 the tide way, and have you seen the tide turn and suddenly begin to 
 flow? Which came round first? The little cock-boats, then the ships 
 a little bigger, then the three-deckers, and then the grand man-of-war 
 wheels round with the others. When the tide is strong enough the 
 statesmen — the tide waiters — will turn round with it. But don't you 
 hurry these statesmen. They are far cleverer than we are. They 
 won't do the right thing till the right time, and the right time is 
 when you tell them they must do it." — Sir Wilfrid Lawson, at 
 Manchester, October, 1876. 
 
 " In regard to th'i possibilities of preference between Canada and 
 the Mother Country the sands are running out. Tariff reform on 
 that side, as we have said again and again, is working under a time 
 limit. In that matter we are bound to insist that, whether by combat 
 or consent, the fiscal door shall not remain absolutely ' banged, 
 barred, and bolted ' against the Dominion at the next Imperial 
 conference." — Observer, London, Oct. 16, 1910. 
 
 " Sir Joseph Lawrence, interviewed by the Morning Post, expressed 
 his inability to find the alleged free trade movement in Canada. The 
 so-called Western agitation, he says, is engineered by free trade 
 agents from here, and need not be taken seriously." — Cable dispatch 
 from London to Globe, Toronto, Nov. i, 1910. 
 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier's tour of the provinces between 
 Lake Superior and the Pacific coast began on July 7 
 and ended at Winnipeg on Sept. 3, 1910. His first 
 meeting with the grain growers was at Brandon, 
 Manitoba, on July 18, In Saskatchewan and Alberta, 
 at later stages of the tour, there were many inter- 
 views between the Premier and the organised grain 
 growers. The Manitoba grain growers, however, 
 sought only one interview. At Brandon 250 members, 
 representing 200 local associations, were in attend- 
 ance. "It was interesting to note," wrote Mr. G. F. 
 Chipman, in the Sun of Toronto,* "that the men 
 who presented the addresses were of both political 
 
 * Sept. 2S, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 185 
 
 parties. All were of one mind, and party feeling 
 was laid aside. The men who had helped Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier into power and had supported him through 
 the last fourteen years, together with the men who 
 had opposed him, stood shoulder to shoulder." 
 
 Two memorials on the tariff were presented to 
 the Premier. The first was read by Mr. R. McKenzie, 
 secretary of the Manitoba Grain Growers' Associa- 
 tion, and the second by Mr. J. W. Scallion, of Virden, 
 honorary president of the association. The first was 
 as follows : 
 
 The grain growers of Manitoba regard themselves as 
 fortunate in having this opportunity of presenting to you 
 their views on certain matters which vitally affect their 
 interest and the prosperity of the country. Unlike indus- 
 trial, commercial and transportation interests, the agricultural 
 interests rarely have an opportunity, in a representative 
 capacity, to make their views known directly to the public 
 men who rule the destiny of Canada. It is a matter of 
 common knowledge that for years it has been a very ordinary 
 occurrence for the Government of Canada to be waited upon 
 by delegations representing important interests and industries. 
 But agriculture, the basic industry and the source of our 
 prosperity, has, through lack of organisation, been unable, 
 as a distinct industry, to give the Government and Parlia- 
 ment the benefit of its views on public questions. This is 
 particularly true of the farmers of the three prairie provinces, 
 which now bulk largely in the minds of Canadians, owing 
 to their rapid increase in population and their abnormal 
 development of natural resources. The development of recent 
 years has demonstrated the capacity of these provinces for 
 the production of food products. Their fertile soil is 
 attracting an ever increasing tide of immigrants, the larger 
 portion of whom are the cream of other nations. It is no 
 dream or visionary idealism to forecast that before another 
 decade Canada will have on her fertile prairies a very large 
 rural population, virile, progressive, intelligent and aggres- 
 sive, loyal and true to all British institutions, living close 
 to nature, and imbued with views on political economy 
 distinct from those of people living in centres of population. 
 In the past our urban population has had most to do in
 
 i86 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 influencing and directing the policies of our Governments 
 and in making and administrating our laws. It is, however, 
 safe to assume that the rapidly increasing rural population 
 in Western Canada will, in the near future, leave its impress 
 on Canadian legislation. 
 
 Of the many economic questions which engage the 
 attention of Western farmers, none is regarded with so 
 much disapproval as the protective tariff. Nor is there 
 any feature of the policy of the Federal Government that 
 has been so burdensome to the Western farmers, or has 
 been the means of retarding the development of the country 
 and hampering the progress of the early settlers as has the 
 element of protection that obtains in the customs tariff of 
 Canada. Let it be said in passing that Western farmers 
 do not object to paying their full share of the cost of 
 government. They do not object to that part of the revenue 
 which they pay into the public treasury. What they do 
 rebel against is the element in the customs tariff which 
 compels them to contribute a large percentage of the pro- 
 ducts of their labour to the privileged and protected classes. 
 The Western farmers do not want any protection for their 
 products. In other words, they are willing that all farm 
 products should be placed on the free list. Nor do they 
 look with favour on any fiscal or preferential tariff that 
 will have the tendency to enhance the cost of living to 
 British artisans and labourers, but rather that every possible 
 facility be given for the free exchange of the food products 
 grown on the prairie farms for the product of Britain's 
 congested factory districts. We submit that duty should be 
 levied only for the purpose of creating revenue for the 
 necessities of government, and that the protective system 
 creates a class whose interests are essentially different from 
 those of the people at large. 
 
 Perhaps we cannot better express the attitude of the 
 grain growers of Manitoba and the Western farmers gener- 
 ally toward the protective system than by reproducing the 
 declaration made by the Liberal party of Canada in con- 
 vention assembled in 1893: — 
 
 That the customs tariff of the Dominion should be based not, 
 as it is now, upon the protective principle, but upon the require- 
 ments of the public service ; that the tariff should be reduced to 
 the needs of honest, economical and efficient government ; and 
 that it should be so adjusted as to make free or to bear as lightly 
 as possible upon the necessaries of life ; and should be so ar-
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 187 
 
 ranged as to promote freer trade with the whole world, more 
 
 particularly with Great Britain and the United States. 
 
 In addition to the above we might quote the following 
 
 statement alleged to have been made by yourself, sir, in 
 
 Winnipeg, in September, 1894: — 
 
 We stand for freedom, I denounce the policy of protection as 
 bondage — yea, bondage ; I refer to bondage in the same manner 
 as American slavery was bondage. Not in the same degree 
 perhaps, but in the same manner. In the same manner the 
 people of Canada, the inhabitants of Winnipeg especially, are 
 toiling for a master who takes away, not every cent of profit, 
 but a very large percentage, a very large portion of your earnings 
 for which you sweat and toil. 
 
 The above quotations represented the views of Western 
 farmers at that date, and they have in no way changed 
 their attitude, nor have they lessened their desire that the 
 protective element be totally removed from our customs 
 tariff, and taxes levied purely on a revenue basis. It may 
 be argued that the tariff schedule of 1897, which in most 
 cases replaced mixed duties (that is, ad valorem and specific 
 duty combined) by ad valorem duties only, reduced taxation. 
 With the low prices which prevailed some years ago, the 
 change brought some measure of relief to consumers, but 
 the upward movement in prices which began in 1898, and 
 has steadily continued until the present time, deprives the 
 consumer of any advantage which he obtained from the 
 small reduction in many of the ad valorem duties of the 
 present tariff schedule. 
 
 As an illustration, we may cite the case of self-binders, 
 which, although reduced from 20 to ly^-s per cent., on account 
 of an increase in value, the duty paid on each binder is 
 now as much, if not more, than before the reduction in the 
 tariff took place. 
 
 While the average rate of duty on total imports was 
 reduced between 1896 and 1909 from 19 per cent, to 16.480 
 per cent., it afforded very little relief in manufactured goods, 
 as the reduction in the per cent, of duty is largely brought 
 about by adding a large number of articles to the free list, 
 nearly all of which are articles of raw material and partly 
 finished commodities used by manufacturers. Western farmers 
 receive a benefit from binder twine, barbed wire and cream 
 separators being placed on the free list, and Ontario stock 
 feeders from the free importation of corn. In the year 1906 
 agricultural implements to the value of {^12,835,748 were
 
 i88 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 manufactured in Canada. The same year there were im- 
 ported agricultural implements to the value of $1,615,123. 
 It is contended, and in fact generally conceded, that the 
 manufacturer adds to the selling price of his commodity the 
 full extent of the protection he receives under the customs 
 tariff. Admitting the correctness of that contention, the 
 farmers of Canada paid to the Government in revenue, in 
 the case of agricultural implements, that year $323,024, and 
 to the agricultural implement manufacturers $2,567,149. 
 The census returns of that year give the wage earners of 
 agricultural implement manufacturers as 6,711. So that the 
 farmers of Canada paid into the treasury of the manu- 
 facturers on account of protection $382.60 for each of their 
 employees. The same year $14,223,447 worth of cotton was 
 manufactured in Canada, and $9,491,803 imported. Reckoning 
 the average duty at 22 per cent., the people paid the 
 Government in revenue on imported cotton $2,088,196, and 
 to the manufacturers $3,129,158. The employees of cotton 
 manufacturers number 10,214.* Cement, an article that is 
 now extensively used for building purposes, and controlled 
 in Canada by a combine or trust, was imported last year 
 to the value of $475,677, on which the Government collected 
 $159,077 in duty. Canada manufactured in the same year 
 $5,266,008 worth of cement. Applying the same rate of 
 duty as the Government charged on imported cement, the 
 consumers of cement paid about $1,740,000 into the treasury 
 of the cement trust last year. 
 
 In our rigorous climate no commodity becomes as much 
 a necessity to those living on the prairie as woollen goods, 
 and on no article is the duty made more oppressive to the 
 consumer. In 1906 the Canadian people paid a duty of an 
 average of 30 per cent, on an importation of $17,451,833 
 for protection to an industry that produced that year goods 
 to the extent of $5,764,600. The annual outlay of the farmer 
 on his homestead, with an average family, for woollen 
 
 *" The company manufactures everything classed under the head 
 of printed cotton goods, whites and greys, and yarns. During the 
 first three years of its organisation the company sold $25,000,000, 
 and paid out in wages $5,500,000." — Advertisement of Dominion 
 Textile Company — which controls two spinning mills, nine cotton 
 mills, four bleacheries, and two print works — Indus/rial Canada, 
 Oct., 1910. In the same advertisement the number of workpeople 
 is given as six thousand. The duties on cotton goods range from 
 15 to 35 per cent. ; and the protection afforded is evidently sufficiently 
 generous to more than cover the wages bill at the Textile Company's 
 seventeen mills.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 189 
 
 underclothing, mits and socks is more than his average 
 annual outlay for implements. The comfort and health of 
 his family require that this necessity should be provided him 
 at the least possible cost. We cannot but view with alarm 
 the persistent efforts of the woollen manufacturers for an 
 increased protection. The last proposition reported to have 
 been submitted to the Government is that the duty on 
 Canadian grown wool be increased by 4 cents per lb., 
 allowing a proportionate increase on manufactured goods. 
 This is simply an attempt to make it appear to compensate 
 for the increased cost, arising from an increase in duty, 
 on the manufactured article that the growers of wool may 
 be protected. The deceptive nature of the proposition is 
 indicated by the returns of the customs department. 
 
 Item 555 in the Customs Tariff for 1907, Schedule A, 
 provides ; — 
 
 Wool, viz. Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Southdown 
 combing wools, or wools known as luster wools and other like 
 combing wools, such as are grown in Canada, per pound, 
 British Preferential Tariff, 2 cents. Intermediate Tariff, 2ji cents. 
 General Tariff, 3 cents. 
 
 The report of the Department of Customs for the fiscal 
 year ending March 31, 1909, shows that under that item in 
 the schedule there were no lbs. of wool imported that year, 
 paying $3.30 duty, and the year previous there was none 
 at all. So that, in fact, an increase in duty on woollen 
 goods into Canada would be no protection to the wool 
 growers, while an increase in duty on the manufactured 
 goods would add to the cost of living of every Canadian. 
 
 We would respectfully urge upon you the advisability 
 of your Government taking advantage of the proposals made 
 by the United States Government for reciprocal free trade 
 in agricultural implements in the last revision of the tariff, in 
 the interests of the grain growers of Canada, at as early a 
 date as practicable. 
 
 The second memorial, which dealt at greater 
 length with reciprocity, and was read by Mr. Scallion, 
 was as follows : 
 
 When the Tariff Commission held meetings throughout 
 the country some years ago, the farmers made their position 
 with regard to the tariff very clear. They wanted no pro- 
 tection for their own industry, and strongly urged that the 
 tariff be reduced to a revenue basis. They hold that
 
 igo THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 opinion to-day more strongly, if possible, than they did 
 then. They are willing to meet the requirements of a tariff 
 framed to cover the public expenditure of the Dominion, 
 but not a tariff which taxes them for the special benefit 
 of private interests. The prices for the produce of the farm 
 are fixed in the markets of the world by supply and demand 
 and free competition when these products are exported, and 
 the export price fixes the price for home consumption. The 
 supplies for the farm are purchased in a restricted market 
 where the prices are fixed by combinations of manufacturers 
 and other business interests operating under the shelter of 
 a protective tariff. Owing to those conditions the farmers 
 strongly urge that such a change be made in our fiscal 
 policy as will give them a square deal. 
 
 There are no trade arrangements the Canadian Govern- 
 ment could make with any country that would meet with 
 greater favour or stronger support from the farmers of 
 Western Canada than a wide measure of reciprocal trade 
 with the United States, including manufactured articles 
 and the natural products of both countries. Such a trade 
 arrangement would give the Canadian farmers, especially 
 the Western farmers, a larger and better market in which 
 to sell and a cheaper market in which to buy. This state- 
 ment can be verified by a comparison of prices in both 
 countries for years back. The prices for grain and live 
 stock, under normal conditions, are much higher in the 
 markets over the line than on this side, and many articles 
 of prime necessity on Western farms can be purchased in 
 the United States much cheaper than in Canada. The 
 farmers are aware of the fact that the Canadian Government 
 on several occasions endeavoured to secure a measure of 
 reciprocal trade with the United States; but that country 
 on those occasions did not seem to favour any such trade 
 arrangement. This was on account of the fact that a political 
 party committed to a high tariff has been in power in the 
 States almost continuously since the Civil War, when a 
 high tariff was adopted to meet the debt incurred by that 
 war, and the powerful private and corporate interests which 
 came into existence and developed under that protective 
 tariff, and because of it, have continued to exercise such an 
 influence on public men and legislation in that country as 
 to be able to prevent any successful attempt to lower 
 the tariff or make freer trade arrangements with other 
 countries.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 191 
 
 But a change is taking place in public opinion in the 
 United States. The people demand a lower tariff and 
 freer trade with other countries, more especially with 
 Canada, and the party of high protection have to bow to 
 the will of the people or go out of office. In fact, the 
 party is splitting up, and protection is the rock on which 
 they are going to pieces. Something must be done to try 
 and save the situation and meet this popular demand. The 
 United States Government have asked the Canadian Govern- 
 ment to enter into negotiations with them for the purpose 
 of arranging freer trade between the two countries. The 
 Western farmers strongly urge our Government to accept 
 the offer of the United States for the consideration of the 
 question of reciprocal trade, and do everything possible to 
 widen the commercial relations between the two countries. 
 Canada has entered into trade relations with Germany, 
 France, Italy and other smaller countries, which is all very 
 well so far as it goes; but every effort should be made, 
 consistent with national honour and fair dealing, to extend 
 our trade with the ninety millions of people right at our 
 own doors, whose trade with us now is nearly equal to our 
 trade with all others together, who afford the best markets 
 in the world for much of our produce, a market which 
 would increase immensely as years go by under a wide 
 measure of reciprocal trade. The farmers know that a 
 lowering of our tariff or freer trade with the United States 
 will be strongly opposed by the united strength of the 
 protected interests which have developed such strength and 
 grown to such power and wealth under our protective tariff 
 and because of it. But these interests have shaped our fiscal 
 policy too long. The farmers demand that these interests 
 be accorded such protection as a revenue will allow, and 
 no more. The Western farmers will watch with intense 
 interest the negotiations between the United States Govern- 
 ment regarding reciprocal trade between the two countries, 
 and strongly urge that everything consistent with national 
 honour to secure such a measure should be done. 
 
 In reply to these memorials, Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 said : 
 
 I am here to know your views. As head of a democratic 
 Government it is my duty to get in contact as much as 
 possible with the people. And it is as a man of the 
 common people that I come before you. I want to talk to
 
 192 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 you, to hear what you have read to me, and to make profit 
 out of it ; to convey it to my colleagues, and to be able 
 to frame upon it such legislation as may seem necessary. 
 I do not admit that there can be any separation of interests 
 in this country. It is part of the policy of the Government 
 to try to harmonise all the different clashing elements in 
 order to reach the common purpose — the welfare of our 
 common country. 
 
 You have brought to my attention certain views of yours 
 upon the tariff, and you say you think the farmers have 
 not received all the consideration they might have received. 
 That would be news to Mr. Fielding, because I know his 
 aim has always been to give to the farmers every possible 
 advantage. Now, it may be that he has not done as well 
 as he intended. As to his intention I am sure, but I 
 will make it my object, as soon as I get back to Ottawa, 
 to convey these valuable papers which have been presented 
 to me this afternoon on the tariff question to Mr. Fielding, 
 and if he has come to the conclusion that he has not done 
 all that can be done, that there is yet something to be 
 done — well, I will tell him to spit on his hands and try 
 again. But I am sure we have done a good deal for 
 you in the way of tariff legislation.* 
 
 At Yorkton, a town of i,6oo inhabitants on the 
 Canadian Pacific Railway, 115 miles north-east of 
 Regina, on July 20, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had his 
 first interview with the grain growers of Saskatche- 
 wan. 
 
 In his references to the tariff the Premier reminded the 
 audience of the allegory of the limbs of the body who 
 protested they worked all the time to feed the stomach, 
 which did nothing for itself. So they decided to starve 
 the stomach, and thereby became weak themselves. " That 
 is much the same with the body politic," said the Premier. 
 "When all interests work together the best results are 
 obtained. The tariff will be reduced from time to time. If 
 I had my own way," continued the Premier, " I would have 
 a free British tariff. Britain is my model, not only for 
 history, not only for constitutional government, not only for 
 public life, but for political economy. But I recognise that 
 all views must be met, and changes made gradually." As 
 * Grain Grozvers^ Guide, July 27, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 193 
 
 to the offer in the Payne-Aldrich tariff of reciprocity in 
 agricultural machinery, Sir Wilfrid said he would consider 
 the offer when it included not only complete machinery 
 but all its parts. The United States was a manufacturing 
 country, second only to Great Britain. Canada was an 
 agricultural country. If the United States manufacturers 
 wanted to ship into Canada, Canadian natural farm pro- 
 ducts must be admitted free to the United States.* 
 
 There were two deputations to Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 at Melville, Saskatchewan, on July 22 — one repre- 
 senting thirty different branch associations of the 
 grain growers, and the other from the Liberal 
 Association of Bangor. For the Liberal Association 
 free trade, as in England, was urged. Mr. C. 
 Lunn addressed the Premier on behalf of the grain 
 growers. 
 
 I was very pleased indeed. Sir Wilfrid (said Mr. Lunn), 
 to hear you, when in Yorkton, say that you took the tariff 
 policy of Great Britain as your guide, and it would be 
 exceedingly satisfactory if you would follow your guide as 
 closely as possible, for there is not a shadow of doubt but 
 that Great Britain owes her wealth and strength to-day to 
 that policy of free trade inaugurated by the late John 
 Bright and his coadjutor Richard Cobden. As illustrations 
 as to the way the tariff works in this protected country, 
 let me give you two illustrations in my own experience 
 after coming to Canada. When in the city of Hamilton 
 some years ago I saw the works of the Wanzer Manufactur- 
 ing Company, and inquired if that was where the Wanzer 
 sewing machine and Wanzer lamp were made. On learning 
 that it was, I said to a storekeeper I was doing some 
 business with that I would like to get a Wanzer lamp, 
 and he kindly telephoned to ask the company the price. 
 " Five dollars," was the reply. I bought the same lamp in 
 Liverpool and Manchester for gs. 6d. ($2.25). About the 
 same proportionate figures applied on their sewing machine. 
 In regard to agricultural machinery, very much the same 
 state of things exists. To-day I can buy a binder for 
 £2^ (8120) for which I have to pay $175 in Western 
 Canada. It has been stated that this machinery is inferior 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, July 21, 1910. 
 •^ N
 
 194 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 to what is sold here. Allow me to say, Sir Wilfrid, that 
 it is exactly the same. No difference whatever.* 
 
 In his reply to both presentations, Sir Wilfrid said he 
 hoped that the tendency of any new revision would be 
 downward and not upward. " I have been fourteen years 
 in office, but my views on this matter have never changed," 
 the Premier continued. " Following the Motherland, we 
 should place free trade as the goal before us, but we 
 cannot reach it in one step. So long as the United States 
 maintains its tariff policy we must be cautious how we 
 proceed. As to reciprocity with the United States, I am 
 in favour of reciprocity if the United States gives us a 
 fair deal. At no time have our relations been so cordial 
 and friendly as at present ; but human nature — and the 
 United States has much human nature — prompts man to 
 reciprocate with the man who is himself prepared to 
 reciprocate." t 
 
 "Only at the last moment," wrote the Lanigan 
 (Saskatchewan) correspondent of the Grain Growers' 
 Guide, I "did we learn that the Premier would meet 
 the grain growers on July 23 at this point; and Mr. 
 Ross, of the Strassburg Association, is to be con- 
 gratulated on the way he seized the opportunity for 
 the grain growers. It was generally understood that 
 Sir Wilfrid would merely make a stop here. The 
 tariff question was taken up by Vice-President Ander- 
 son, of the Lanigan Association, and if the Premier 
 did not know before why the tariff should be reduced, 
 especially on farm machinery, he surely does now." 
 
 Sir Wilfrid, in answering the case thus presented 
 to him, said : 
 
 The tariff the Liberal Government has given is not the 
 best, but it is better than that which it displaced. It needs 
 further improvements. It will have to be gradually reduced. 
 Further revision must be made, but before revision is under- 
 taken the Government will again appoint a commission to 
 investigate. This commission will consult with the grain 
 
 * Grain Growers^ Guide, Aug. lo, 1910. 
 + Globe, Toronto, July 23, 1910, 
 JAug. 3, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 195 
 
 growers. It will consult with the various interests con- 
 cerned. It will aim, having in view the common wealth of 
 our common country, to go as far as may be justifiable 
 towards the trade policy of England, the shining example 
 of the world, although it cannot be expected that we can 
 accomplish in one or two generations what it took in 
 England eight centuries to arrive at.* 
 
 Here, as at Melville, the local Liberal Association 
 put itself in line with the grain growers. Mr. Edward 
 Anderson, speaking for the Liberals of Lanigan, 
 told the Premier that 
 
 The tariff was first invented by the evil one. " It was 
 class legislation," he said. Man always advocated free 
 trade for what he wanted to buy. The farmer's imple- 
 ments were his raw material, and this is an agricultural 
 country." " I know you will agree with me," he said to the 
 Premier, " but we want a little more in that line than 
 you've done during the last year. I am a Liberal, and 
 want you to carry out the programme of 1893. You've done 
 wonders, Sir Wilfrid ; you made certain improvements even 
 in this. But I sometimes think the Red Parlour has a little 
 too much influence with some in the Liberal party. That's 
 all. You won't be offended at plain speaking?" he 
 concluded. 
 
 "Not at all," was Sir Wilfrid's smiling reply. "You 
 are preaching not to a sinner but to a convert." The 
 Premier confessed his free trade ideals had not yet been 
 attained, and gave the assurance of further revision of the 
 tariff by a commission. t 
 
 At Humboldt (July 25) six local branches of the 
 grain growers were of the deputation. The Premier's 
 reply, as summarised in the Grain Growers' Guide, l 
 was : That the Liberal party stands for lowering the 
 tariff, and has made quite a reduction since it came 
 into office. No doubt, when the next revision came 
 around, the tariff would be still further lowered, and 
 a reduction would be made in the right direction, as 
 
 * Giobe, Toronto, June 25, 1910. 
 + Ibid., July 25, 1910. 
 I Aug. 10, 1910.
 
 196 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 nc Government could stand that neglected the West, 
 and especially the farmers. 
 
 Prince Albert is the principal town of a Sas- 
 katchewan constituency for which Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 was returned at the general election of 1896. He was 
 also returned at that election for Quebec East, and 
 he chose to sit for the Quebec constituency. He was 
 at Prince Albert on July 27, when he was presented 
 with a memorial from the Liberal Association which 
 congratulated him on his statement earlier in the tour 
 of the prairie provinces that he would consider 
 favourably a reduction of the tariff, and expressed 
 the hope of the Liberal Association that revision 
 would be with a view^ of lightening the burdens of 
 the Western farmers, "in so far as such reduction is 
 consistent with your Government's well-known 
 policy." "The reading of the memorial," added the 
 Globe's correspondent, in his report of the Prince 
 Albert interview, "was greeted with prolonged 
 applause." * 
 
 Saskatoon is a city of 6,500 inhabitants, the third 
 city in the province of Saskatchewan. The interview 
 of the Premier with the grain growers there, on 
 July 29, was in the court-house, and was the longest 
 interview up to this point in the tour. Mr. John 
 Evans, of Nutana, a director of the Central Grain 
 Growers' Association of Saskatchewan, was in the 
 chair, and was one of the spokesmen for the Grain 
 Growers' Association on the tariff question. In his 
 address to the Premier, ]\Ir. Evans asked 
 
 Why the farmers should not receive a bonus from the 
 Government the same as the Dominion Iron and Steel 
 Company. "The Liberal party have departed from all the 
 principles of Liberalism, and to-day are the most Con- 
 servative Government on the face of the civilised globe," 
 he declared. " In 1896 the Liberal Government came into 
 power on the distinct pledge of free trade. The ideal 
 * dole, Toronto, July 28, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 197 
 
 system is British free trade. To-day you are farther from 
 it than in i8g6. In 1896 you promised to skin the Tory 
 bear of protection. Have you done it ? If so, I would like 
 to ask you what you have done with the hide."* 
 
 " The tariff system of protection can be called by different 
 names which will help us common people to understand its 
 meaning," continued Mr. Evans. " It may be called trade 
 restriction, class legislation, legalised robbery, mother of 
 trusts, combines and mergers. It is also the cause of graft, 
 regarding the morals of our public men, and worse than 
 all it is the cause of lowering the moral life of the working 
 classes of this fair Dominion, by causing hard times, com- 
 pelling our people to live under conditions that are a 
 disgrace to a country like Canada, where prosperity should 
 be the lot of everybody." t 
 
 Mr. Evans, during his speech, was asked by Mr. E. M. 
 McDonald, member for Pictou, Nova Scotia, whether or 
 not he was making a political speech. "No, I am not," 
 replied Mr. Evans. " I am looking at it from a farmer's 
 standpoint. We want to know what can be done. I helped 
 Sir Wilfrid into power." J 
 
 "We are not asking for a privilege," said Mr. 
 Murdock Cameron, of Floral, who followed Mr. 
 Evans, with a plea for lower duties in the tariff. 
 
 " We are asking for pure justice. The farmers do more 
 for the good of the human race than all the manufacturers 
 in the whole Dominion. No member will be returned from 
 Saskatchewan as a protectionist. There are 100,000 grain 
 growers in the West. I am a Liberal, and I hold a very 
 strong opinion of you. Sir Wilfrid, but your promises have 
 not all been carried out." § 
 
 Mr. W. Rolands, of Aberdeen, also condemned 
 the tariff of 1907. 
 
 " We want the protection that benefits the masses and 
 not the minority." Mr. Rowlands told the Premier that 
 his promises had not been fulfilled, and that if he wanted 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, July 30, 1910. 
 
 t Grain Growers" Guide, Aug. 10, 1910. 
 
 \ Farmers'' Tribune, Winnipeg, Aug. 3, 1910. " As the merging 
 of manufacturing concerns goes on in the East, the demand in the 
 West for a lower tariff increases in vigour and asperity." — Free 
 Press, Winnipeg, Aug. 6, 1910. 
 
 § Farmers' Tribune, Winnipeg, Aug. 3, 1910.
 
 198 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 the votes of the people again he would certainly have to 
 redeem his promises as soon as possible.* 
 
 "We are all British subjects," said Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier, replying first to Mr. Evans, "and we enjoy 
 the right of free speech." 
 
 "My friend has availed himself of his opportunity. He 
 will doubtless agree if I claim also freedom of speech. I 
 certainly realise that a good deal of what has been heard 
 from the various speakers has been commendable, but I must 
 find fault with him who talks politics rather than grain- 
 growing. I am here to confer, to learn, on business for the 
 country's well-being, not to debate party differences." " We 
 offered you freer trade," he continued, " and have given you 
 freer trade. To abolish the tariff at one stroke would create 
 a financial crisis. It is impossible for us now to raise the 
 revenue as in England. I am a free trader. I am not a 
 protectionist. My creed — what I stand for— is a revenue 
 tariff, nothing else. We are making progress." t 
 
 "We have done the best we could, and have made a better 
 tariff system ; but we will continue to do the best we can and 
 arrange a tariff which will be suitable to the people of the 
 West. We stand for a revenue tariff, and we have reduced 
 the tariff on practically everything. I will not promise as 
 to what will be done, but I will try to act and perform." J 
 
 At Regina, the political capital of Saskatchewan, 
 where Sir Wilfrid Laurier met the grain growers on 
 August I, much stress was laid in the memorial pre- 
 sented by Mr. F. M. Gates, of Fillmore, President 
 of the Saskatchewan Association, on the duties on 
 agricultural implements. 
 
 With your permission (read the memorial), we will 
 refer to certain resolutions passed by our members, § and 
 ask you to state if it is possible for the Government, of 
 which you are the head, to comply with our wishes in 
 respect of the same. 
 
 "That whereas Canadian machinery can be purchased 
 
 * Gfain Growers^ Guide, Aug. lo, 1910. 
 
 t Globe, Toronto, July 30, 1910. 
 
 I Grain Growers'' Guide, Aug. 10, 1910. 
 
 § At the convention held at Prince Albert, Feb. 9-10, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 199 
 
 from 10 per cent, to 30 per cent, less in Great Britain than 
 in the Canadian West ; 
 
 "And whereas we believe such conditions are caused by 
 the high protective tariff existing at the present time; 
 
 " Therefore be it resolved that immediate steps be taken 
 regarding the said tariff so that the home purchaser may 
 at least be able to purchase as cheaply as the outside 
 world. 
 
 "And, further, that the Ottawg. Government be requested 
 to accept the unconditional olfer of the United States 
 Government for reciprocal free trade in farm implements." 
 This resolution was passed at our last annual meeting. 
 The farmers of this province recognise that it is impossible 
 instantaneously to abolish the tariff, but they do claim and 
 believe that a reduction on agricultural implements is 
 possible, and only a measure of justice and fairness to 
 them. They believe they should be able to buy machinery 
 as cheaply as the outside world. And we also ask that 
 the oifer of the United States Government for reciprocal 
 free trade in implements be accepted. 
 
 We have a right to as much consideration in this matter 
 as the makers of certain goods who receive privileges in 
 the matter of machinery imports for use in their manu- 
 facture; and as more and more machinery is necessary for 
 the pursuit of farming operations in the best manner, the 
 present unnecessarily high prices bear unduly upon the 
 cultivators of the soil. 
 
 Then in regard to the general tariff, you, Sir, say that 
 you are a free trader, but that you are not in a position 
 to carry out the policy you would like. We in the West 
 are not all free traders, but in the course of contact with 
 a great number of our members who are representatives of 
 the mass of farmers of the province in which you now are, 
 we have found, and we are in a position to assure you that 
 there is a strong and growing feeling in favour of an all- 
 round reduction in the existing protective tariff. We believe 
 the time has arrived when manufacturers in this country 
 should be expected to get along without further aid in the 
 way of protection — protection which is afforded them at the 
 expense of the consumer, who in common fairness should 
 be considered; and we ask you to say to us here that your 
 Government will undertake at the earliest opportunity to so 
 readjust the tariff as to make it more a tariff for revenue 
 and not for protection.
 
 200 TETE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 You should be aware of this feeling, Sir, through the 
 people's representatives in the House of Commons; but we 
 are afraid they have not all done their duty in this matter, and 
 we have felt it necessary to place this question before you, 
 who should, judged by your utterances in the past, not be 
 afraid to deal with it. It is not our intention to take up 
 any time in reciting figures or quoting statistics, nor do 
 we wish merely to ask from you an expression of sympathy 
 with our wishes. What we seek from you is a definite 
 assurance that your Government will adopt measures to give 
 us relief by effecting a reduction in the general tariff and 
 especially in respect of agricultural implements.* 
 
 In his reply^, Sir Wilfrid dealt with all the points 
 raised, and in regard to the tariff he said : 
 
 " I am glad you recognise that it would be impossible 
 at one fell swoop to dispose of the tariff. Changes must be 
 gradual. It would not be possible for us to raise our 
 revenue by direct taxation. If we did, the first party to 
 suffer would be the settlers, and the first goal to be set 
 before us is the settlement of those enormous prairies." t 
 
 One particular thing referred to in the address (con- 
 tinued the Premier) was that the United States had offered 
 free trade in agricultural implements. Years ago the Ottawa 
 Government made every possible effort to get a hearing at 
 Washington for the purposes of reciprocity. They were 
 given the cold shoulder, and the Government said that they 
 would send no more delegations. Then it was Washington 
 which sent a delegation to Ottawa. " If our neighbours 
 meet us," concluded Sir Wilfrid, "then I think that a tariff 
 can be arranged on lines similar to those suggested by 
 this deputation." J 
 
 The Liberal Association at Regina, as was the 
 case at Melville and Lanigan, fell into line with the 
 grain growers' central organisation of the province 
 in assailing the tariff. The address was presented to 
 the Premier from the association by its president, 
 Mr. William Peterson. It congratulated Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier on "the splendid administration of the 
 
 * Grain Growers'' Guide, Aug. lo, 1910. 
 
 t Weekly Fhcenix, Saskatoon, Aug. 3, 1910. 
 
 \ Standard, Regina, semi-weekly edition, Aug. 4, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NFAV FEUDALISM 201 
 
 Government and on successful progress in tariff 
 reduction." "At the same time," it continued, "we 
 would respectfully but earnestly request that a further 
 revision be made at an early date, and that such 
 revision should be in the direction of marked reduc- 
 tions in the present tariff schedules." * 
 
 The grain growers of the local associations of 
 Southern Saskatchewan met the Premier on August 2 
 at Weyburn, a town of 1,800 inhabitants, ninety 
 miles to the south-east of Moose Jaw. There the 
 address was made by Mr. Frank Sheppard, of Wey- 
 burn. f The address read : 
 
 A farmer purchases a farm and applies labour in the 
 necessary cultivation of the soil, which produces crops or 
 wealth. If the farmer is a free man and owns his land 
 he is entitled to the product of his labour. 
 
 The manufacturer builds his factory, establishes the 
 necessary machinery, purchases his raw material, applies 
 labour to fit it for the use of man, and it becomes wealth. 
 If he is a free man he is entitled to the wealth it produces 
 or to the products of his own labour. 
 
 Up to this point there is no trouble, but just here the 
 manufacturer steps in and says, "I must have all of the 
 products of my own labour, and also as much as I can 
 get from the other fellow." The farmer says, "If you 
 come by stealth and appropriate my earnings you are a 
 thief. If you come and take it by force you are a robber, 
 and you will be punished as a criminal." Now, the manu- 
 facturers were and still are all honourable men, and did 
 not like the thoughts of being called thief or robber, so 
 they went to the Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, who was at 
 this time leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, but 
 waiting for a chance to be reinstated as Premier. This 
 Sir John was a great man, and did many good things. 
 The Liberal party do not like to say that he never did 
 wrong, but they will admit that he was a clever and shrewd 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, Aug. 2, 1910. 
 
 t The correspondent of the Globe (Aug. 4) described the Weyburn 
 manifesto as the " frankest address that Sir Wilfrid had received 
 during his tour." This address was published verbatim all over the 
 Dominion.
 
 202 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 man. Sir John saw his chance, and he said, " Put me in 
 power again, and I shall see that you are allowed to keep 
 your own earnings and get a good slice from the other 
 fellow." "But," says the manufacturer, "what about those 
 names thief and robber?" Sir John replied, "I shall wipe 
 out those words, and put protection in their place." The 
 manufacturers went to work, and with the help of very 
 many farmers, who liked the word "protection," not sus- 
 pecting that in reality it meant freedom from punishment 
 for robbing us of our goods. Sir John was returned to 
 power and protection became the law of our land. Now, 
 with all due respect, I ask. Is it not a crime to pass a law 
 to take the earnings from one class and give them to 
 another? If it is wrong for the individual to rob, it is 
 wrong to make robbery legal. In 1893 ^ Liberal convention 
 was held and a platform adopted. Protection was denounced 
 and called by its proper and original name. In 1896 you. 
 Sir Wilfrid, became Premier. Since that time you have 
 added a number of articles, among which were binding 
 twine and wire for fencing, to the free list. You have also 
 given us preferential trade with Britain. We do not under- 
 estimate what you have done, nor are we ungrateful ; but 
 when we expected you to lay the axe to the root of the 
 tree, and cut it down, you only cut off some of the branches. 
 Now, if it was wrong for the Government of Sir John A. 
 Macdonald to pass this law, is it not also wrong for your 
 Government to perpetuate the same either as a whole or 
 in part ? 
 
 Protection is a great wrong. It makes nations dishonest 
 one with the other. It makes individuals selfish and dis- 
 honest. It teaches the mischievous principle that we are to 
 expect to receive without giving value in return. 
 
 Now, we appeal to you, Sir Wilfrid, for relief. We 
 are happy to know that you admire the British free trade 
 policy, and that you regard Britain in this respect as the 
 light of the world. Again I say, we look to you for 
 redress. 
 
 Through many years you sought to open up better markets 
 through reciprocity with our neighbours of the south. Your 
 proposals were rejected as often as made. We admired you 
 when you stepped back and said that the next proposal for 
 reciprocity must come from the United States, and set about 
 opening up other markets for us. 
 
 President Taft now asks for closer trade relations, and
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 203 
 
 we hope that your Government will be able to secure for 
 us the advantages of this valuable market. 
 
 We would ask your attention to the duty on agricultural 
 implements, which we consider as extremely unjust. This 
 seems to be a special tax upon the farmer. 
 
 We as grain growers are willing to pay our share towards 
 the revenues of our country, but as free men we sternly 
 object to pay tribute to our fellow-citizens. We ask no 
 favours. We urge our rights. The manufacturer asks and 
 receives tribute from us. Would there were more of the 
 spirit expressed by one of old, who would not even partake 
 of the spoils of war lest some one should say, '' I have made 
 Abraham rich." 
 
 A revenue tariff provides incidental protection, and should 
 be sufficient to satisfy the most exacting. The manufacturers 
 first ask for protection for infant industries, afterwards as 
 vested rights. 
 
 In conclusion, I must say, if we are free men treat us 
 as such. If we are slaves we ask our freedom. If refused 
 we must demand it. Our resources are not exhausted. 
 
 Again I say our appeal is to you. Sir Wilfrid.* 
 
 The Premier, in reply, wrote the correspondent 
 of the Globe, reiterated his personal adherence to 
 free trade. 
 
 All the progress he looked for had not yet been made, 
 but the claims of the grain growers would be fully gone 
 into. He stated the Government's readiness to discuss re- 
 ciprocity with the United States on the latter's advance on 
 a broader basis. The tributes of the address to the British 
 fiscal policy Sir Wilfrid held to be justified. But Britain 
 had obtained her prominent position after years of progress. 
 "The Motherland moved slowly, steadily," he said, "but 
 she has passed in results and permanency those who have 
 sought to effect reform by revolution." He repeated his 
 assurance that the Tariff Commission would go fully into 
 the matter. "We are not," he concluded, "yet satisfied with 
 the results attained." t 
 
 Homesteaders from the north-western states are 
 more numerous in the neighbourhood of Yellowgrass 
 
 * Grain Growers^ Guide, Aug. 17, 1910. 
 t Globe, Toronto, Aug. 4, 1910.
 
 204 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 than in any other district of Saskatchewan visited by 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier. 
 
 Yours, he said, in addressing a meeting made up of these 
 American settlers at Yellowgrass, on August 4, is the greatest 
 of all patriotic privileges. You can do much to improve the 
 relations between the land of your birth and the land of your 
 adoption. You can do much to weld the bond of union. I 
 have had great dreams. I am too old now to expect to see 
 them become realities; that may be your portion. I pray 
 that it will. An alliance, offensive and defensive, between 
 the British Empire and the American Republic would result, 
 in my humble opinion, in a state of world-affairs under 
 which not a single man in the world could fire a shot with- 
 out permission. Perhaps this is too ambitious a dream, but 
 something we can do. Our commercial relations in the past 
 have not been what they should be. We have taken our 
 stand on British preference. We will not depart from that. 
 It is and shall remain part of our fiscal policy. But I can 
 conceive of a wide field for reciprocity. That is a goal we 
 can attain.* 
 
 As to the tariff, the Premier admitted that it was not satis- 
 factory, and added that his desire was to meet the views of 
 Western farmers, but progress must be steady, not revolu- 
 tionary, t 
 
 Moose Jaw is a city of 10,000 inhabitants on 
 the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, about 
 midway between Calgary and Winnipeg. Sir Wilfrid 
 Laurier was there on August 5. Mr, Henry Dorrell, 
 president of the Saskatchewan Agricultural Society, 
 stated the case of the grain growers for lower duties 
 on agricultural implements and in all the other 
 schedules of the tariff of 1907. 
 
 Free trade in agricultural implements, said Mr. Dorrell, 
 was a live subject with the new settlers, who, coming chiefly 
 from Britain and the western states, countries in which free 
 trade and low tariff opinions predominate, compared prices, 
 and asked why they were higher than in the land they left. 
 Transportation charges did not account for it. To the farmer 
 agricultural implements constitute from 20 to 30 per cent. 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, Aug. 5, 1910. 
 t S»n, Toronto, Aug. 10, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 205 
 
 in the cost of the production of wheat. This was to him 
 raw material just as much as manufactured parts were to 
 manufacturers. Why, it was asked, should the manufacturer 
 get his raw material at a low rate of duty to sell in a pro- 
 tected market, when the farmer paid duty on his material to 
 sell in an open market ? * Mr. Dorrell maintained that fur- 
 ther time was not required in order to make a change. 
 Where a wrong was to be righted there was no time to lose. 
 
 Said Sir Wilfrid, in reply : 
 
 Mr. Dorrell has stated to me that he is an English 
 Liberal, t I am also an English Liberal. Mr. Dorrell is an 
 Englishman by birth and I am of French descent, but I do 
 not remember the time when, young as I was, I did not pro- 
 claim myself a Liberal of the English school. 
 
 With regard to the reform of the tariff. If I understood 
 Mr. Dorrell aright, he stated that if it was possible it 
 should be done away with immediately and without any con- 
 siderable amount of trouble. Now, let us see how that would 
 work. If by legislation you put a tax upon the people it 
 will increase the price of commodities, and if there is a 
 merchant, a strong free trader, who by the result of this 
 legislation had f 1,000 worth of stock on his shelf and his 
 fortune increases at the rate of the goods in one night simply 
 by the work of legislation, that merchant will stay a strong 
 
 * " The tariff situation is, or should be, known beforehand to all 
 who come West to take up land. They enter upon their work with 
 their eyes open, and one seldom, if ever, hears of a man who turns 
 back dissatisfied." — Mr. John Hendry, President (1909-1910) CM. A., 
 Annual Convention, Vancouver, Sept. 20, 1910 — Industrial Canada, 
 Oct., 1910. 
 
 t " The deputations which interviewed Sir Wilfrid were headed in 
 every case by Canadians of the Old Country, and Americans were 
 hardly in evidence at all." — Free Press, Winnipeg, Sept. 7, 1910. 
 
 " There is absolutely no ground for the statement that the Western 
 movement is being engineered by outsiders. Almost all of those 
 prominent in the Western farm organisations — the Mackenzies, the 
 Scallions, the Bowers and the Partridges — are old Ontario men." 
 ■ — Ed. Sun, Toronto, Oct. 19, 1910. 
 
 " There is not the slightest doubt that the free trade germ has 
 been started, and it is growing, and as we are looking for our 
 immigration from the Old Country to a great extent, the free trader 
 from the Old Country will be coming over here, and the free trade 
 germ will grow more rapidly." — Mr. H. G. W'addie, of Hamilton, 
 Ontario, at Convention of CM. A., Vancouver, Sept. 20, 1910 — 
 Industrial Canada, Oct., 1910.
 
 2o6 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 free trader. If legislation had been given and increases the 
 price of a man's goods 20 per cent., he may have a hundred 
 thousand dollars in the bank, and if the prices increase 20 
 per cent, he will squeal, and that is why I say all tariff 
 legislation should be gradual ; and taking the history of 
 Great Britain in this respect, it will show by the works 
 of the country itself that tariff legislation must be proceeded 
 with carefully. It is easy enough to impose an abuse on 
 the people, it is not always so easy to do away with it. And 
 that is the history of the English country as I have read it. 
 My friend, a minute ago, referred to the abolition of the 
 Church in Ireland. It took years and years to abolish it, 
 and when they did abolish it they took very careful 
 measures.* 
 
 At Moose Jaw there was also an address from the 
 Liberal Association. 
 
 As to the fiscal system, said Sir Wilfrid Laurier in reply, 
 Bright and Cobden were his models. "But we cannot to- 
 day," he continued, "give you the full policy of Britain. 
 The Motherland is a nation made. Canada is a nation in 
 making. But we can give you trade. We have given you 
 free trade, and mean to give you free trade, and I don't 
 think it is going too far to say that the Government will give 
 still freer trade." t 
 
 Support for the grain growers' movement against 
 the tariff was also forthcoming at Moose Jaw from 
 the Associated Boards of Trade — Chambers of Com- 
 merce as they would be called in England — of the 
 West. 
 
 The remarkable Western sentiment in favour of tarifF 
 reduction heretofore pressed upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier by the 
 farmers and grain growers — wrote the correspondent of the 
 Globe, who was travelling with the Premier, from Moose 
 Jaw, August 5 — found unexpected endorsement here to-day. 
 Following a mass meeting in the afternoon a delegation 
 representing the Associated Boards of Trade of the West 
 waited upon the Premier, and President Saunders, manager 
 of the Bank of Commerce, presented an address urging sub- 
 stantial Government assistance to the Canadian Exhibition in 
 
 * Grain Growers' Guide, Aug. 17, 1910. 
 t Globe, Toronto, Aug. 6, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 207 
 
 the West, towards which §2,500,000 has already been raised. 
 The deputation which represented the Boards of Trade of 
 Calgary, Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Winnipeg, Brandon, Prince 
 Albert, Regina and Moose Jaw, consisted in the main of 
 bankers, business men and manufacturers. Interviewed by a 
 representative as to whether the free trade propaganda ad- 
 vocated by the grain growers was endorsed generally by the 
 commercial West, the President replied emphatically in the 
 affirmative. 
 
 Asked as to whether the Western manufacturers, of whom 
 several were represented, were in sympathy with the move- 
 ment for tariff reduction, an equally unequivocal answer was 
 given. "We absolutely exclude party politics from our or- 
 ganisation," was his statement, ''but there is a general and 
 strong sentiment in favour of a material reduction in the 
 tariff. While we are leaving the grain growers to present 
 their own case, the sympathy of the Boards of Trade, the 
 business men, and even the manufacturers, is unquestionably 
 with them. As a matter of fact, there are no party politics 
 in the West, as we know them in the East, no hidebound 
 allegiance to political names. The West is more concerned 
 over policy than party, and the dominant policy at the present 
 time is tariff reduction. Unquestionably the Premier has 
 struck a responsive note in his references to the British free 
 trade policy." * 
 
 Similar testimony as to the strength of the revolt 
 against the tariff in the West was given by Mr. 
 Walter Scott, Premier of Saskatchewan, in an inter- 
 view published in the Globe of Toronto on Septem- 
 ber 26. 
 
 " Those who belittle the growing and dominant sentiment 
 in the Canadian West towards free trade," said Mr. Scott, 
 "do not understand and know their country. They are, at 
 any rate, totally out of touch with the great producing 
 prairies. I have been amazed at some of the recent comment 
 in England, apparently made for the benefit of the Tariff 
 Reform propaganda there, seeking to cast doubt upon the 
 reported sentiment of the W'est in favour of pronounced fiscal 
 progress. The sentiment always existed in the West, but 
 it is now becoming stronger and increasingly insistent. The 
 old feeling has become so intensified that W^estern Conserva- 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, Aug. 6, 1910.
 
 2o8 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 tive papers have realised its political potency and are now 
 joining in the cry for some action. Throughout our province 
 even the Tory press is talking free trade for Western farmers." 
 "The West," Mr. Scott continued, "heartily supports the 
 British preference in our tariff. It would be prepared to 
 increase it, for it is deemed to be in line with trade progress. 
 But the suggestion that Canada should importune the Mother- 
 land to change her fiscal policy one iota is absurd. The 
 free trade policy of Britain is the ideal of the growing 
 sentiment in our country. It is recognised that it cannot be 
 adopted in a day, but the call of the West is for material 
 progress in that direction. As for the intimation that unless 
 Britain gave Canada some reciprocal trade arrangement there 
 was danger of the estrangement of the Dominion, Sir Wilfrid 
 rightly characterised it as an insult to the whole Canadian 
 people." 
 
 Further testimony to the strength of the move- 
 ment in Saskatchewan was given by Mr. F. W. G. 
 Haultain, leader of the Conservative Opposition in 
 the Legislature at Regina, in an interview in 
 Toronto. 
 
 " What is the feeling in Saskatchewan with regard to a 
 lowering of the tariff? " he was asked. 
 
 "The feeling is strong," Mr. Haultain replied. "The 
 population is largely agricultural, and naturally it would 
 like to get things, particularly agricultural implements, as 
 cheaply as possible." * 
 
 Lloydminster, which will be recalled in England 
 as the headquarters of the Barr colony of 1902, was 
 reached by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on August 8. The 
 town is just east of the Alberta boundary line, and 
 had in 1910 a population of 1,000. A deputation 
 from the local branches of the organised farmers of 
 Alberta and Saskatchewan was in attendance with 
 a memorial against the tariff of 1907. 
 
 We ask as a general move towards free trade (it read) 
 that a general reduction of the tariff be made, more particu- 
 larly on woollen and cotton goods, also that the duty be 
 immediately removed from all farm implements and tools. 
 * Toronto dispatch to Witness, Montreal, Oct. 3, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 209 
 
 Further, that steps be taken to arrange with the United 
 States for reciprocity in farm implements in accordance with 
 the offer made by them.* 
 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier's reply, as published in the 
 Lloydminster Times of August 11, was as follows : 
 
 He had been asked to mention the matter of reciprocity 
 with the United States. The United States has made us an 
 offer of reciprocity. He was an admirer of the American 
 people. They are a very great people, and very cute. They 
 never forget No. i. He might tell them that he was as 
 cute as the Americans, and he would not forget No. i. For 
 his part, he was prepared to take their offer, and he knew 
 that the Canadian manufacturer of implements was also pre- 
 pared to have reciprocity if proper terms could be arranged. 
 If the Canadian manufacturer could go into the United 
 States on the same footing as the United States manufacturer 
 can come into Canada, reciprocity would be an easy matter. 
 But how would it work.'' The machine complete, or parts of 
 the machine, come here at iy% cents; the farmer bought the 
 machine, he bought a plough or a binder, or something of 
 the kind ; if they took the offer that had been made what 
 would happen? The American manufacturer said, "If you 
 buy this machine from the Canadian it will come in free, but 
 if you break a wheel or if you break a coulter of a plough, 
 and you send to Canada for it, you will have to pay 45 per 
 cent. American duty." Would that be fair? If the American 
 offered reciprocity upon the machine complete and upon 
 the parts, the Government of Canada was ready to meet him. 
 Would it not be fair to have reciprocity upon something 
 which the American bought from the Canadian ? They 
 should have it on wheat, barley, oats, butter, and cheese — 
 this offer had been open for twenty years — and upon coal, 
 fish, bread, and all things which Canada produced, but they 
 (the Americans) have always refused it. He would say to 
 the American, "If you are ready to give and take we are 
 ready to meet you." Years ago, when he — the speaker — 
 came into office in 1896, he sent representatives to Washing- 
 ton to offer reciprocity to the Americans. They were received 
 politely, but that was all. He then said, "Good-bye; you 
 will never see us here again." No more pilgrimages to 
 Washington. If the American wanted to see us, he would 
 have to come to Ottawa. And what was the consequence ? 
 * Grain Growers^ Guide, Aug. 24, 1910. 
 O
 
 210 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 They had had a pilgrimage of the Americans to Ottawa, and 
 now they had this offer of reciprocity. When the American 
 was willing to treat with reciprocity as a mutual thing, when 
 he was prepared to let in parts on the same terms as the 
 complete machine, when he was prepared to let in Canadian 
 produce on the same terms as Canada is prepared to let in 
 American produce — "upon these terms," concluded Sir Wil- 
 frid, " I am prepared to treat with him." 
 
 Lloydminster was the last town in Saskatchewan 
 at which Sir Wilfrid Laurier made a stop. The same 
 day — August 8 — he crossed the boundary line, and 
 entered the Province of Alberta. His first stop in 
 Alberta was at Vegreville, a town on the Vermilion 
 River, 72 miles east of Edmonton. The local unions 
 of the United Farmers of Alberta at Vegreville pre- 
 sented a memorial in which they declared that "they 
 suffered under the bondage of protection," and in- 
 sisted that "the tariff operated for private gain and 
 not for public good." They urged "an immediate 
 reduction of the tariff all round," as "a good move 
 towards our ultimate goal of free trade."* 
 
 Edmonton was the first city in Alberta at which 
 the Premier stopped. He was there on August 9, 
 and received deputations from the United Farmers 
 of Alberta and also from the Edmonton Liberal Asso- 
 ciation. The memorial from the Liberal Association 
 was as follows : 
 
 The Liberal Association of the City of Edmonton desires 
 through its Executive to express to you satisfaction at the 
 fact that since the Liberal party has taken charge of Cana- 
 ■iian public affairs very substantial reductions have been 
 made in the tariff, and also that a number of articles have 
 been placed upon the free list. We also wish to express our 
 satisfaction at your statements during your present trip that 
 personally you are a free trader, as we firmly and emphatic- 
 ally believe that freedom of trade is the only fiscal policy 
 that will promote sound commercial progress in Canada. 
 While we recognise the difficulties encountered by a Govern- 
 * Globe, Toronto, Aug. 9, iqic.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 211 
 
 ment when it attempts to eradicate the selfish interests of 
 protection, still, we believe that the time is ripe now for the 
 Liberal Government of Canada to make a decisive move to- 
 ward a further reduction of the tariff. Believing in the 
 principles of free trade, as the leaders of the Liberal party 
 do, no better and no more appropriate evidence could be 
 given of it, at the present time, than by the placing of 
 agricultural implements upon the free list. Free trade in 
 agricultural implements would be a boon to the citizens of a 
 country where agriculture is its chief industry and chief 
 source of wealth. We also urge substantial reductions in 
 the duty upon woollen goods, farm vehicles, sugar, cotton 
 goods, and many of the other necessaries of life. We would 
 also urge that your Government make every possible legiti- 
 mate effort to meet the Government of the United States in 
 any reasonable reciprocity arrangement by which freer trade 
 would be stimulated between these two great countries, and 
 in the event of the failure of such negotiations we would 
 urge the Liberal Government of Canada to bear in mind that 
 the most effective way to fight hostile tariffs is with free 
 imports. In making these representations we wish to express 
 our pride and satisfaction with the record and the history of 
 the Liberal Government in Canada, and to express the con- 
 fidence and belief that in further reductions of the tariff such 
 as we request. Liberalism will be made a stronger and more 
 vital force in the development of our great country."* 
 
 "I believe in free trade as firmly as I ever did," 
 said Sir Wilfrid Laurier in reply. 
 
 "It is," he continued, "no fault of mine that free trade 
 principles, in which I believe, have not been carried into 
 practice. I must ask you to believe that it is not an easy 
 thing to carry into immediate effect; but, nevertheless, we 
 have followed the practice of gradually reducing the tariff." t 
 
 Red Deer is a divisional point on the Canadian 
 Pacific Railway, with a population of a little over 
 2,000. It is 95 miles north of Calgary and 98 miles 
 south of Edmonton, in the heart of the wooded district 
 on the Red Deer River — in every way one of the 
 most attractive towns in Alberta. The United 
 
 * Sun, Toronto, Sept. 14, 1910. 
 t Globe, Toronto, Aug. 10, 1910.
 
 212 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Farmers of Alberta were represented at the interview 
 with Sir Wilfrid Laiirier on August lo by Mr. James 
 Bower, president, and Mr. James Speakman, a 
 director of the central organisation of the farmers of 
 the province. Both these gentlemen made addresses 
 on the tariff. 
 
 We have here, said Mr. Bower, the foundation of a 
 great nation, and we have here the God-given heritage of a 
 glorious country into which the foundation stock has been 
 transplanted, and which, if properly matured, will astonish 
 the world in its development and growth. We submit, sir, 
 that a great weight of responsibility rests upon our states- 
 men, upon whom devolves the making of our laws which 
 have for their object the governing and protection of these 
 people. 
 
 And we submit, sir, that it is the duty of our Government 
 to protect these people, not by unjust tariff laws, but by the 
 removal of these, and by the removal of monopolistic con- 
 ditions which have grown up here in this Western country, 
 fostered and protected as they are by the use of some laws 
 that are unjust in themselves and by the abuse of other laws 
 that are not strong enough to keep in check the encroachment 
 of those corporations which seem to look on the farmer as 
 their lawful prey, and continue to filch from the producers 
 that which by right should be theirs. 
 
 Those whom we represent here to-day are quite willing 
 to give honour where honour is due, to give tribute where 
 tribute is due, but in all things they are democratic to the 
 core. These subjects which we wish more fully to bring to 
 your attention are serious ones to us, and we hope they will 
 be taken seriously by those to whom has been entrusted the 
 framing of our laws. In bringing these things before your 
 notice we are not asking for anything that is unreasonable. 
 Unlike the manufacturing and corporation interests, we are 
 not asking for the alienation of the public funds for the 
 benefit of the farmers alone. 
 
 We ask that the Government give us their protection, not 
 by the round-about methods of bonuses and protective tariff, 
 to which principle we are utterly opposed, but protection 
 from the spoliation of the spoiler and by the inauguration 
 of the different systems and the legislation which we ask for. 
 We repeat that we are not asking something for nothing, we
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 213 
 
 want to pay our way, we want the cost of these different 
 systems to be charged up against the people using them, 
 putting no burden on those whom they do not directly 
 benefit. 
 
 We are hopeful, sir, that now, having travelled over the 
 greater part of the Prairie West and studied the conditions 
 here for yourself, you will be pleased to consider our requests 
 and to consider that they are presented to you by those who 
 represent the true source of our national prosperity — the 
 agricultural class. 
 
 And, having done so, and having given us some intimation 
 of your conclusions to cheer us in our work, we will then 
 bid you God-speed, and earnestly pray that many years may 
 be added to your busy life to still take part in a true states- 
 man-like way in the government of our country. 
 
 The resolution submitted to Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 by the deputation had been adopted by the executive 
 committee of the United Farmers of Alberta in July. 
 It was as follows : 
 
 "Having suffered for many years under the bondage of a 
 protective tariff which has been maintained by the Govern- 
 ment and is but the levying of tribute upon the people, not 
 for the legitimate expenses of the Government, but for a 
 private and privileged class, and is a principle which should 
 be condemned without qualification, and as in its practical 
 operation the present Canadian tariff works unfairly in favour 
 of the manufacturing industries and to the prejudice of the 
 agricultural industries, 
 
 "We therefore ask as a general move towards freer trade 
 that a general reduction of the tariff be made, more particu- 
 larly on woollen and cotton goods, also that the duty be 
 immediately removed from all farm implements and tools; 
 further, that steps be taken to arrange with the United States 
 Government for reciprocity in farm implements in accordance 
 with the offer made by them." 
 
 We do not think it necessary, said Mr. Speakman, 
 v/ho went into details in regard to the tariff, 
 
 to comment on the first sentences in this resolution, con- 
 demning in general terms the protective system. John Stuart 
 Mill, in a letter, dated Jan. 10, 1871, to the New York Liberal 
 Club, very clearly defined the system : " I hold," he wrote.
 
 214 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 " every form of what is called protection to be an employment 
 of the powers of government to tax the many with the inten- 
 tion of promoting- the pecuniary gains of a few. . . . What- 
 ever gain there is, is made by the few and them alone, for 
 the labouring people employed in the protected branches of 
 industry are not benefited. . . . The gain by protection, 
 when there is gain, is for the employers alone." We are 
 under the impression that you agree with us in condemning 
 such a system, and the only question between us is whether 
 we could not move more rapidly in the direction of diminish- 
 ing and ultimately abolishing the element of protection in 
 our tariff. 
 
 In 1895 the average duty collected on dutiable imports was 
 30.55 per cent. ; calculated on the total imports it was 17.7 
 per cent. In 1900 the average duties were 27.7 per cent, and 
 16.7 per cent. In 1909 we find 27.451 per cent, and 16.6 per 
 cent. Since 1895, therefore, the average duty on dutiable 
 imports has fallen 3.1 per cent, and calculated on the total 
 imports only i per cent. During the last ten years there 
 has practically been no reduction. In 1895 the proportion of 
 dutiable imports to free imports was 58 per cent, to 42 per 
 cent. In 1909 the proportion was 60.8 per cent, to 39.2 per 
 cent. We are now paying taxes on a larger proportion of 
 our imports than fifteen years ago ; in this respect the tariff 
 seems to have progressed backwards. In view of these facts 
 we think our request for an immediate reduction in our tariff 
 not unreasonable. We must frankly say that during the 
 election of 1896 our chief hope was that we should pass 
 gradually from protection to free trade. We think it is time 
 to take a very decided step in this direction, and from our 
 knowledge of our province we can confidently assert that such 
 a step would be welcomed with enthusiasm by the overwhelm- 
 ing majority of our people. 
 
 One splendid movement in our tariff arrangements, we 
 heartily acknowledge, has been initiated — the British prefer- 
 ence. It was a grand and courageous idea, worthy of a 
 great statesman, but somehow in carrying out the idea there 
 seems to have been a flaw somewhere. In 1909 we imported 
 from Great Britain — 
 
 Dutiable goods ... ... $52,219,881 
 
 Free goods ... ... 18,462,220 
 
 Total 170,682,101
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 215 
 
 From the United States^ 
 
 Dutiable goods ... ... $90,584,507 
 
 Free goods .... ... 79,471,671 
 
 Total ... ... $170,056,178 
 
 The average duty on British dutiable goods was 25.755 
 per cent. The average duty on American dutiable goods was 
 24.868 per cent. The average duty on total imports was: 
 British, 19.028; American, 13.247. 
 
 So that while Great Britain is supposed to have the prefer- 
 ence, America in every way appears to have the advantage. 
 There is another way of estimating the movement of the 
 tariff in its bearing upon the people. In 1895 the duties 
 collected amounted to $17,887,269, being, with a population 
 of about 5,000,000 people, a tax per capita of $3-55, say, per 
 family of $17.55. ^^ ^9°9 the duties were $48,059792, mak- 
 ing with 7,000,000 people a tax per capita of $6.85, or per 
 family of $34.25. This, of course, does not give the full 
 measure of the tariff burden. It is a commonplace of 
 economics that a protective duty raises the price of the pro- 
 tected goods about to the extent of the duty. Further the 
 middlemen, wholesale and retail, rightly add their profit, not 
 only to the value of the goods, but to the duty, so that, for 
 instance, the duty on our woollen clothing, as we have to 
 pay it here, amounts to nearer 50 per cent, than 30 per cent. 
 A careful and detailed calculation has led me to the estimate 
 that for every dollar duty going into revenue about three 
 dollars are taken out of the pocket of the people, a burden, 
 per capita, of $20, or per family of $100. It is an enormous 
 burden, and the most intolerable aspect of it is that the tariff, 
 taxing so heavily the absolute necessaries of life, such, for 
 instance, as clothing and footwear, is so unjust in its in- 
 cidence ; it falls the heaviest on the poorest. 
 
 One clause in our resolution states that our tariff in its 
 operation works unfairly in favour of the manufacturing in- 
 dustries and to the prejudice of the agricultural industry. 
 No doubt the Minister of Finance has honestly tried to make 
 his tariff fair to all classes, but the forces of nature have 
 been too strong for him, and the tariff in its actual working 
 gives nearly all the benefits to the manufacturing industries, 
 and leaves the agricultural industry little but the burden. 
 We have not the detailed figures at hand for the last five 
 years to prove this point, as the Canadian Year Book for the
 
 2i6 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 last five years does not publish the necessary data. But the 
 figures for 1904 will clearly bring out our point. Of the 
 $136,796,068 dutiable imports in 1904, scarcely $3,000,000 
 could be counted as farm products, coming in competition 
 •with our farms, not because our tariff on farm produce is 
 prohibitive, but because it is useless, as prices in America 
 are generally higher than in Canada. But on manufactured 
 goods the tariff is very much alive, and we farmers have to 
 pay the duty and the enhanced prices. 
 
 Further, in 1904, our free imports, after deducting bullion, 
 settlers' effects and Government stores, amounted to, say 
 $85,000,000. Of these barely $4,000,000 for tea, coffee, etc., 
 are for the direct benefit of the consumer. The remaining 
 $81,000,000 may be classed as raw material or other goods 
 to help the various industries. $74,000,000 go to help the 
 manufacturing and mining industries, and only about 
 $7,000,000 go to help the farming industry. 
 
 I think our point in regard to the unfair incidence of the 
 tariff is clearly proved, and justifies our demand that the first 
 step towards equalising things should be taken by at once 
 putting our agricultural machinery and tools on the free list. 
 On so large and important a subject it is difficult to say 
 what should be said in a few words. But we hope we have 
 put before you in a fair way a reasonable request which merits 
 consideration. We are asking for no favours. We do not 
 want protection for our own goods. We think we are able to 
 stand on our own feet, to earn our own living by the strength 
 of our own hands and brains without taxing the nation for 
 our support. 
 
 The reduction of the tariff will be a benefit not to the 
 agricultural industry exclusively, but to the whole nation.* 
 
 The Premier's reply to these two addresses was 
 made at a public meeting in Red Deer the next day, 
 August II. 
 
 He had, he said, spent the previous night in studying 
 these pleas for free trade, and he regretted one sentiment 
 that was expressed in the addresses. To one point in the 
 paper dealing with the tariff he wished to refer. It was there 
 stated that there was a struggle between the farmers and the 
 manufacturers. There was no necessity for such a struggle, 
 and he did not believe that there was one. The farmeri 
 
 * Grain Growers' Guide, Aug. 24, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 217 
 
 needed the manufacturers, and the latter needed the 
 farmers.* 
 
 There is, continued the Premier, an unfortunate tendency 
 to create an invidious difference between manufacturers and 
 farmers as classes. Our fiscal policy, in a word, is this : 
 "No protection for certain classes at the expense of others." 
 We do not tax for protection, but for revenue purposes. It 
 is not our policy to have a continuous tinkering with the 
 tariff. It creates a state of uncertainty and stifles enterprise. 
 We held tariff revisions in 1897 and 1907, and we will have 
 another in due time, when I hope we may — I expect we will — 
 witness further reductions in the tariff, t 
 
 The tariff which his Government prepared in 1897, con- 
 tinued the Premier, in recalling the fiscal policy of the Liberal 
 Government, had been prepared to benefit all of Canada. It 
 might be said of the Tory tariff in 1879 that it was designed 
 to benefit a particular class, but the tariff of 1897 was not 
 of that character, and the people had prospered under it. He 
 himself was a follower of the great English Liberals, but 
 there was a difference between England and Canada. In 
 England it was possible to impose direct taxation. In 
 Canada, a new country, it was necessary to continue to secure 
 the money for the purposes of the country by customs duties. 
 Sir Wilfrid next recalled on how many classes of goods the 
 tariff had been reduced since his Government came into 
 power, and explained that the British preference controlled 
 the prices of goods sold in Canada from Germany and other 
 countries. The manufacturers of all these countries must, 
 he said, meet the prices of the English manufacturers to 
 whom the preference was given. There was thus a general 
 reduction in prices. There would be no tinkering with the 
 tariff. The Tories had made changes every year when they 
 were in control. The Liberal Government would not do this. 
 There would be a general consideration of the tariff in the 
 future at the appointed time. Nothing would be done until 
 then, but at that time there would be reductions. | 
 
 Your farmers who met me yesterday, said the Premier, in 
 regard to the plea for better trade relations with the United 
 States, urged reciprocity with our United States neighbours. 
 Our American friends have been refusing the suggestion of 
 reciprocity for fifty years. So I have said, " Good-bye, 
 
 * Grain Growers'' Guide, Aug. 24, 1910. 
 
 \ Globe, Toronto, Aug. 11, 1910. 
 
 J Grain Growers'' Guide, Aug. 24, 1910.
 
 2i8 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Washington." We will make no more pilgrimages. We will 
 be independent, and try to build up trade for ourselves, and 
 the next pilgrimage came from Washington to Ottawa. We 
 are prepared to meet our American neighbours, on their 
 solicitation, and see how far we can agree, on two conditions 
 — first, foremost, and all the time, the British preference ; 
 and, second, protection to vested interests. I am an ad- 
 mirer of the American people; they stand up for number one. 
 I am of the opinion that we can adopt something of that 
 number one doctrine. That is where we stand on the tariff 
 question. We have given a fair measure of freer trade, and 
 we are ready to further extend it when the conditions require 
 it for the common good of our common country.* 
 
 From Alberta Sir Wilfrid Laurier went on to the 
 Pacific coast, where he spoke at Vancouver, Victoria, 
 New Westminster and Rupert. His only speech on 
 the tariff was at Vancouver, and was in reference to 
 the plea of the lumbermen of British Columbia for 
 more protection than is afforded them by the tariff 
 of 1907. 
 
 I have, the Premier said at Vancouver, Aug. 16, just 
 left a section of the West in which they all appear to want 
 free trade. You want a little more protection, and on the 
 prairies they want a little freer trade. I'll have to refer this 
 matter to the Minister of Finance, and I have no doubt but 
 that in due time he will evolve a scheme that will satisfy 
 your desire for a little more protection and the prairies' de- 
 sire for a little more free trade. That should be satisfactory 
 to both sides, t 
 
 On the homeward journey Sir Wilfrid Laurier 
 spoke on the tariff and on reciprocity at Nelson, 
 British Columbia, and Lethbridge, Alberta. 
 
 At Nelson (August 29) the Premier's address was 
 at a public meeting called by the local Liberal Asso- 
 ciation. 
 
 The fiscal question, he said, is not an easy problem. 
 When I was in the prairie provinces I met a population of 
 producers of natural products, and they were anxious for 
 freedom of trade. As soon as I landed at Vancouver I 
 
 * Globe, Toronto, Aug. 12, 1910. 
 
 + World, Vancouver, Aug. 16, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 219 
 
 received an address from the Mayor and Board of Trade in 
 which they asked for protection. They asked free trade at 
 one end, protection at the other. I said, Very well, gentle- 
 men, I will refer your petition and the petitions of the prairies 
 to my friend, Mr. Fielding, and I hope he will be able to 
 draw from them, as he did before, a tariff suitable to every- 
 one. There is an old saying that the proof of the pudding 
 is the eating, and I am sure that even my Conservative 
 friends who are present will be fair enough to admit that we 
 have put on the table for them and for all the people of 
 Canada a pudding which has been fruitful, and which has 
 given us the best food we have had since confederation. 
 
 There is no doubt our tariff has been the best tariff ever 
 devised, but this tariff is not perfect. Let me call your 
 attention to this, that the cardinal feature of the tariff 
 adopted in 1897 was the British preference. On April 23, 
 1897, we determined to give to the products of Great Britain 
 a preference of 123^ per cent., which was increased two 
 years afterwards to 25 per cent., and subsequently increased 
 to 33j4 per cent.* Now this has been a regulator of prices 
 of all goods introduced into Canada which had to pay duty, 
 even though they came from Germany, the United States, 
 or any other portion of the earth, for in order that they 
 might come into circulation and be used by consumers, their 
 prices had to be brought down to the prices of the British 
 article. It has been a regulator of profits. Let me say also 
 that it is a cardinal and standing feature of the Canadian 
 tariff, and as long as we are in office it shall remain there. 
 
 It was not adopted without much effort and thought. We 
 had a most determined opposition from his Majesty's Oppo- 
 sition of the Conservative party. They opposed it for two 
 reasons. First they said that such a reduction would kill 
 our manufactures. Well, they could not maintain that posi- 
 tion very long because the manufactures were not killed, the 
 factory chimneys did not tumble down. On the contrary, 
 more were built. And they could not be consistent and 
 honest, or even politic, by maintaining such an argument. 
 The second objection they raised was that it was not right 
 for us to give a preference to Great Britain unless we received 
 a preference in return. The British policy is a policy of free 
 trade, therefore it was not possible for them to give us a 
 preference without changing altogether their fiscal policy. 
 
 * For curtailments of the British preference in 1904 and 1907, see 
 " Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," pp. 397, 464.
 
 220 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 Whatever may be the policy of the Conservative party it is 
 not the policy of this Government to ask the British people 
 to change their policy. We claim the right to make our own 
 tariff to suit our own needs and interests, and the right we 
 claim I think ought to be given to the British people as 
 well. 
 
 We intend to maintain our policy of preference to Great 
 Britain, leaving it to the British people themselves to give us 
 a preference or not to give it according as it may suit their 
 interests to give or withhold it. I have been told that unless 
 there is a mutual agreement between Great Britain and 
 Canada on matters of tariff the British connection will be in 
 jeopardy. What an insult to the Canadian people ! Our 
 loyalty does not depend on any tariff agreement, our 
 loyalty is deep rooted in the heart. But there is another 
 country with which we should have better arrangements and 
 a better trade policy. A country of ninety million people, 
 which is at our door, a country of kindred blood and kindred 
 race, and with which we can certainly have most valuable 
 and profitable trade. I have often said, and it is my opinion 
 still, that the relations existing between Canada and Great 
 Britain and the United States are not worthy of such great 
 nations as they are. But I hasten to say also that if the 
 commercial relations between Canada and the United States 
 are not on a better footing, it is not the fault of Canada, but 
 of the United States. It was our policy to have a treaty 
 of reciprocity with the United States, and indeed, in 1896, 
 shortly after we had taken office, I sent two of my col- 
 leagues, Sir Louis Davies and Sir Richard Cartwright, to 
 interview the American Government and discuss with them 
 whether it was possible to improve our trade relations. 
 We were received politely, but with a cold shoulder, and 
 from that moment I said good-bye to Washington. I 
 determined that there should be no more pilgrimages to 
 Washington ; that if there were to be any more pilgrimages 
 they should be from Washington to Canada. 
 
 We have not since that time sent a delegation to 
 Washington, but it so hapioened that a delegation came 
 from Washington to Ottawa. I understand that it is possible 
 that we shall have overtures for reciprocity with the United 
 States. Such overtures we are at all times prepared to 
 meet. I am always a great admirer of the American people 
 They have a great many splendid qualities, and they have 
 one quality which is perhaps more prominent than any
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 221 
 
 other one. It is that they always stand for number one ; 
 and for my part I think it would be well for us to take 
 a leaf from their book, and if we are to have negotiations 
 for reciprocity we also should stand for number one. But, 
 sir, I can see that there are many things concerning which 
 we might have better relations with the United States. 
 Something, however, has to be kept in mind. First, we 
 have to keep in mind the British preference. Nothing is 
 to interfere with that. Then we have trade relations with 
 other nations in the world. We have our treaty with France, 
 with Japan, and we have to take care that the new con- 
 cessions of trade given to those nations shall not be 
 interfered with. And everyone knows who knows anything 
 of these questions that there are a number of articles in 
 which we can trade with the United States without inter- 
 fering with our trade in Great Britain. We must remember 
 also that the United States are far in advance of us in 
 regard to other articles, and we have to take care that no 
 treaty we negotiate shall put in jeopardy any existing interest. 
 With these two exceptions I think it would be well to try 
 and improve our relations with our neighbours. But, sir, 
 a strange thing has taken place. I hear already echoes 
 which come to me in this far part of the country from the 
 Conservative press in Toronto and elsewhere, that objection 
 is taken already to negotiating any treaty with the United 
 States on the ground that it will interfere with and put in 
 jeopardy our trade relations with Great Britain. 
 
 What more absurd position could be taken ? If there 
 be any way whereby we could improve our trade relations 
 with Great Britain it is by having a friendlier relation 
 with the United States. The more we are on friendly 
 terms with the American people, the more satisfactory will 
 be our relations with Great Britain, because Great Britain 
 has no better customer than the United States and the United 
 States has no better customer than Great Britain, and the rela- 
 tions are mutually beneficial ; and if we were lucky enough we 
 should do Great Britain a benefit by securing a fair com- 
 mercial treaty with the United States. But it is characteristic 
 of the Conservative party that whenever a step forward is 
 made by Canada it is opposed by them on the ground that 
 it is going to jeopardise the relation of Canada to Great 
 Britain. The old reformers — there may be some, not many, 
 in this audience— will remember the old struggle that took 
 place in Ontario and Quebec for responsible government.
 
 222 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 They remember also the efforts made at the time the 
 reformers Baldwin, Lafontaine and William Lyon Mackenzie 
 were opposed by the Tory party because they said it would 
 injure the British connection. But, sir, responsible govern- 
 ment, instead of jeopardising the British connection, has been 
 the means of making it dearer if possible to the Canadian 
 people. Now, we are told that if we improve our relations 
 with the United States we shall endanger the British con- 
 nection. And only last winter, hardly four months ago, 
 we were told that if we would build a Canadian navy we 
 W'Ould also injure the British connection. There has never 
 been a step taken by the Canadian people in the course 
 of their advancement as a nation but it was opposed by 
 the Conservative party on the ground that it would injure 
 the British connection.* 
 
 At Lethbridge (Sept. i) the United Farmers 
 continued the movement that had been begun when 
 Sir Wilfrid Laurier was travelHng westward through 
 the province to the coast. A memorial was presented 
 by Mr. J. Quinsey, of the Wheatland Union, and 
 also a director of the central organisation of the 
 farmers of Alberta. 
 
 It stated that while the resolutions accompanying the 
 address were the same as presented at other places in 
 Alberta, they did not emanate from one or two agitators, 
 as had been said, but were the heartfelt beliefs of every 
 member of their organisation. They were presented again 
 at Lethbridge for the purpose of showing the Premier that 
 the farmers of the north and south were united upon the 
 question. The address thanked Sir Wilfrid for his courteous 
 reception and the answers he had given the delegations at 
 Red Deer, and reiterated the farmers' desire for a revision of 
 the tariff downward, and for free importation of farm 
 implements, t 
 
 * Daily News, Nelson, Aug. 30, 1910. 
 
 t " The agitation in the West is against the implement trust and 
 kindred organisations that have been flourishing under an unneces- 
 sarily higli tariff. The implement industry, as everyone knows, has 
 been the Government's chief ally in its work of deforming constitu- 
 tional administration into a huge system of private exploitation. 
 That industry is no longer in its infancy, and Western farmers feel 
 that they should be relieved of this oppression. It is really remark- 
 able that it has taken the farmers all these years to realise that
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 223 
 
 The tariff (said the Premier, in reply) was one of those 
 matters which affected all classes and interests. Personally 
 he was a free trader, and wished they could have free trade 
 as they had it in England. But that was impossible. In 
 England, where there were large estates, incomes and land 
 monopoly, they were able to raise their revenue by direct 
 taxation. In Canada they had few millionaires, and, thank 
 God, no land monopoly, so were compelled to raise revenue 
 by means of customs duties. There was room for improve- 
 ment, he would grant, and it had been the policy of the 
 Liberal party to revise the tariff periodically in order that 
 stability so necessary might be maintained. He favoured 
 a permanent government tariff commission, travelling from 
 place to place and interviewing all classes, so that when 
 the time came to revise again it might be revised in a 
 manner to suit all classes. In conclusion, the Premier 
 explained how impossible it was to make an exception to 
 one class, such as the farmers, and to exempt farm 
 implements without being unfair to other classes.* 
 
 Lethbridge is the most important city on the coal- 
 fields of Alberta. It is a divisional point on the 
 Canadian Pacific Railway and the St. Paul, Min- 
 neapolis and Sault Ste. Marie railways. It is half- 
 way between Medicine Hat and the Crow's Nest Pass, 
 and 105 miles south-east of Calgary. It has a popu- 
 lation of 6,500, and is one of the western cities nearest 
 to the international boundary line. Montana is the 
 neighbouring state. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, while in 
 Lethbridge, addressed a meeting (August 31) of the 
 local Liberal Association, and again discussed the 
 tariff, and reciprocity with the United States, particu- 
 larly as regards coal, for the mining companies in 
 the Lethbridge district are anxious for reciprocity 
 with the United States in order to extend the market 
 
 they have no right to expect fair treatment from a Government 
 that obtained office on free trade promises, and then, as soon as it 
 had got what it wanted, formed a partnership with the implement 
 manufacturers to exploit the farmers to the limit of endurance." — Mr. 
 Robert Rogers, Minister of Public Works in Manitoba, in T/ie News, 
 Toronto, Nov. 2, 1910. 
 
 * Daily Herald, Lethbridge, Sept. 1, 1910.
 
 224 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 for the output of their mines in the neighbouring 
 states of Montana and Washington. 
 
 One other of the reasons of the development of Leth- 
 bridge (he said) is the fact that you have found a market 
 for the coal, which is the chief product of Lethbridge, in 
 Montana on the other side of the line. This is simply 
 an evidence of what would be the advantages of a treaty 
 of reciprocity between the United States and Canada. Well, 
 if we have not better relations between Canada and the 
 United States the fault is not altogether with Canada. Your 
 coal has found a market in Montana in face of a hostile 
 tariff. For my part, I have always been in favour of a 
 larger measure of reciprocity of trade between the two 
 countries, and I have repeated it in Canada, and from the 
 soil of the American Republic, that the commercial relations 
 between Canada and the United States were not of such 
 a character to do honour to such countries as are these 
 two countries. But again, I repeat, if the relations are not 
 more open and friendly the fault is not ours. We had a 
 treaty of reciprocity a few years ago* between Canada and 
 the United States. It was abolished on the ground that 
 it was more prejudicial to Canada than to the United States; 
 but we have always been ready and willing to negotiate 
 a new treaty with our neighbours. 
 
 In 1896 one of the first acts of the Canadian Govern- 
 ment was to send two of my colleagues to Washington 
 with a view to obtaining ultimately reciprocity in trade. 
 It did not suit the policy of the American Government at 
 that time to extend these trade relations. I have no fault 
 to find with them for that. They know their own wants, 
 and if they won't give us better trade relations, we can 
 live, and not only live, but thrive also. And I said, for 
 my part, there would be no more pilgrimages to Washington, 
 but if any overture was ever to be made for better trade 
 relations between the two countries, the overture would have 
 to come from Washington and not from Ottawa. And from 
 that time there has been no attempt on the part of Ottawa 
 to better the trade relations. 
 
 But last winter the tables were turned, and we had 
 a delegation to improve the trade relations come from 
 Washington to Ottawa; and there we said that we might 
 
 * Elgin-Marcy Treaty, 1854-1866.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 225 
 
 expect this year to better the trade relations with our 
 American cousins. 
 
 For my part, I have always been a great admirer of 
 the American people. If there is one quality which I admire 
 above all others in the American character, it is that on 
 all occasions they stand for themselves, or what I might 
 call "No. I." Well, sir, no fault can be found with this, 
 and for my part it is some years since I tore a leaf from 
 the book of the American, and I stand also for "No. i." 
 We shall do the best for ourselves. Is it not possible 
 that between two peoples of kindred races as we are, that 
 we can find a common ground on which we can trade for 
 the mutual advantage of both parties ? 
 
 Strange to say, to show this — I do not know how to 
 characterise it — the strange inconsistency of the Conservative 
 party, so soon as it becomes possible that there would be 
 negotiations between the two countries, the Conservative 
 party began to put up objections. They do not want to 
 have it, and the reason is, "We should be careful of 
 entering into an intrigue with the Americans, because a 
 treaty of commerce between the United States and Canada 
 might endanger the British preference." I ask you, my 
 fellow countrymen — you who have followed British affairs 
 for the past fourteen years — whether there was a Conservative 
 party of Canada, whether it was led by Sir Charles Tupper 
 or by Mr. Borden, in favour of the preference we have 
 given to England. They always opposed it. The very day 
 my friend Mr. Fielding introduced it, on April 23, 1897, 
 Sir Charles Tupper was leader of the party, and they 
 opposed it and said the policy was going to destroy our 
 manufactures. They repeated that for one or two years, 
 and then they had to abandon that cry because the manu- 
 factures were not destroyed, the tall chimneys did not topple 
 over, but became stronger, and there were more of them. 
 
 They had another cry. It was. that it was not patriotic 
 to give a preference to the trade of the Mother Country 
 unless the Mother Country was prepared to give us a 
 preference in their own markets also. You say that it was 
 not patriotic on the part of Canada to give a preference 
 to Great Britain. Why did we give it? First of all, it 
 suited us to do so, and because we wanted to do the best 
 we could to the Old Motherland of which we are proud 
 to be a part. The Conservative party told us that we should 
 bargain with England. " If you will not give us the 
 P
 
 226 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 preference, we will not give you any." That was the 
 attitude of the party which is always shouting "loyalty." 
 That was the kind of loyalty they had to give. Sir, we 
 here raise our revenue by custom. It is therefore easy for 
 us to decrease the duty by 12}^ per cent, or by 25 per 
 cent. But England could not do so. She could not give 
 us a preference unless she altered completely her fiscal 
 policy. She could not give us a preference because her 
 ports are open to the world. Well, sir, whatever we have 
 been, the attitude of the Conservative has never been, and 
 never shall be, the policy of the Liberal party. England 
 is at liberty to do the best for itself, and we claim the 
 liberty to do the best for ourselves in Canada by allowing 
 every part of it to develop itself according to its own 
 interest. Therefore, that is the reason why I say that it 
 is absurd for the Conservative party now to raise any 
 objection to the negotiations with the United States. 
 
 We shall take good care, whenever we negotiate with 
 the United States, that the British preference shall not 
 be affected, as we took good care when we negotiated the 
 treaty with France two years ago that the British preference 
 should not be affected, and as we took good care when we 
 negotiated with Germany two months ago that the British 
 preference should not be affected. The British preference 
 is a part of our fiscal policy, and will remain a part of 
 our policy so long as the Laurier Government remains in 
 office.* 
 
 Two of the coal mines in the vicinity of Leth- 
 bridge were visited by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. There 
 the Premier was told that these mines, which furnish 
 domestic lump and screen coal as distinct from steam 
 coal, the output of the mines at the Crow's Nest Pass, 
 had reached the capacity of the market on the Cana- 
 dian side of the international line, while the supply 
 of coal in the Lethbridge area was practically un- 
 limited. The mining interests were consequently 
 anxious that there should be free reciprocal trade 
 with the United States. 
 
 " The two mines visited, out of seven in the vicinity," 
 wrote the correspondent of the Globe (Sept. 2, 19 10), 
 
 * Daily Herald, Lethbridge, Sept. i, 1910.
 
 AGAINST THE NEW FEUDALISM 227 
 
 "have a capacity of 1,600 tons per eight-hour day, con- 
 tinuously for twenty years. They sell the best domestic 
 commodity at the mines here for $3.85 per ton, while the 
 price in Winnipeg and Montana, owing to freight and tariff, 
 is fS. They seek, under a reciprocal removal of the tariff,* 
 to develop the market in Montana and Washington, and, 
 despite its existence, have already secured considerable 
 sale in Spokane and portions of Montana. The mine 
 managers assured the party that the Americans served 
 were likewise agitating for the removal of the tariff, 
 as the United States consumers would benefit in re- 
 duced prices, while the Canadians would secure a market for 
 the product. 
 
 "'The difificulty is with the Nova Scotia coalfields,' said 
 Manager Livingstone frankly. * They desire protection from 
 Pennsylvania and Virginia coal. But why should we suffer 
 to benefit them ? We need markets, and the consumers need 
 coal, with cheaper prices. Free trade would develop the 
 Canadian field and reduce the price to the consumers. 
 The greatest good to the greatest number,' he added smiling. 
 ' If it is necessary to protect the industry in Nova Scotia, 
 why not establish a tariff zone ? ' Free trade, he said, would 
 mean the trebling of the number of men employed, and 
 opening up great fields of coal now dormant for lack of 
 a market." 
 
 From this and preceding chapters a realisation 
 is possible, I think, of the extent and the underlying 
 causes of the revolt of 1910 against the New Feudal- 
 ism. As I view it, the revolt is the most important 
 popular political movement in Canada since the 
 rebellion of 1837. The task that confronts the re- 
 formers of 1910 is even greater in some respects 
 than that which confronted the reformers of 1837 J 
 for the New Feudalism is enormously better en- 
 trenched in its hold on the political institutions of 
 the Dominion than was the Family Compact in its 
 
 * The duty on coal in the United States tariff is 45 cents per ton. 
 In the Canadian tariff the duty is 53 cents a ton. It was first im- 
 posed in 1870 solely to protect the coal industry of Nova Scotia, and 
 to force the sale of Nova Scotia coal in the provinces of Quebec and 
 Ontario.
 
 228 THE REVOLT IN CANADA 
 
 hold on the legislature and the government of the 
 old province of Ontario. 
 
 To succeed, the revolt of 1910 must not end with 
 only such a revision of the tariff as will ease the 
 seven million consumers of Canada of the burdens 
 of the National Policy. More than this must be 
 secured to make the revolt effective and worth while. 
 The New Feudalism must be severed from its hold 
 on the Government at Ottawa, and the representative 
 institutions of the Dominion must be fully restored 
 to the service of the democracy of Canada. There 
 can be no effective democracy with the New Feudal- 
 ism in control. Democracy must ultimately win in 
 the great struggle that begins with the revolt of 1910, 
 or the condition of the farmers and of the wage and 
 salary earners of Canada must become infinitely worse 
 and infinitely harder and more insecure than the lot 
 of people under the Old Feudalism as described 
 in the court rolls and manorial records of mediaeval 
 England.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Agreement, form of Dominion 
 Canners', 56 
 
 Agricultural implements, duties 
 on, 79, 80, 82, 84, 87-9, 96- 
 107, 142, 152-3, 187, 203 ; 
 export of, 79 ; imports of, 
 188 ; on " free list," 151, 
 187 ; trust of, 222 n. 
 
 Agriculture, Canadian Council 
 of, 30, 166, 171-2 
 
 Alberta, Farmers' Association at, 
 165, 170-1 ; free grants of 
 land in, 150; Lumbermen's 
 Association of, 41 ; popula- 
 tion of, 144 ; Society of 
 Equity at, 165 
 
 Anderson, E., 195 
 
 Anti-Combine Bill, 69, 70 
 
 Anti-Dumping Act, 12, 14, 86-7, 
 125-6 
 
 Anti-Trust Act, 53 
 
 Argenteuil Convention, resolu- 
 tion of, 183 
 
 Argentine Republic, prices of 
 agricultural machinery in, 
 80-1 
 
 Asbestos merger, 54 
 
 Associations, Farmers' {see 
 Granges) 
 
 Atikokan Iron Company, 116 
 
 Australia, prices of agricultural 
 machinery in, 81 
 
 B 
 
 Baths, sinks, etc., duties on, 53, 
 
 150 
 Beer merger, 61 
 Bertram, Liberal bargain with, 
 
 5. 17 
 Blake, E., 18 
 Blankets, duties on, 151 
 Boots and shoes, duties on, 147, 
 
 155 
 Borden, R. L., 92, 225 
 
 P* 
 
 Borden, Sir F. W., 72 n. 
 
 Boston, 12, 113, 119 
 
 Bounties, aggregate value of, 
 128-9; duration of, 76, 118-9, 
 i33i 137 i ''nd export duties, 
 121 ; extension of, 73, 125, 
 127-8 ; on iron and steel, 72-3, 
 76, 91, 113, 117-22, 126-9, 
 134 ; on wire rods, 125-6 
 
 Bounty policy, 3, 8, 11, 12, 32, 
 72, III, 116-7, 121 ; British 
 protest against, 139 ; farm- 
 ers' opposition to, 133-4 
 
 Bower, J., 212 
 
 Boxes, duties on, 62 
 
 Box-making merger, 62 
 
 Bread, prices of, 146 
 
 Bricks, duties on, 150 
 
 Bright, John, 193, 206 
 
 British Columbia, canning in- 
 dustry in, 85 ; lumber mills 
 in, 62 ; not .represented at 
 Liberal convention, 141 
 
 Brown, C, i 
 
 Buggies, duties on, 87 
 
 Building materials, duties on, 150 
 
 Cameron, D. C, 168;?. 
 
 Cameron, M., 197 
 
 Canada Bolt and Nut Company, 
 
 75 
 Canada Iron Furnace Company, 
 
 116 
 Canada Screw Company, 75 
 Canadian Canning Company, 46, 
 
 47 ; form of agreement of, 
 
 56 ; objection of, to duties, 
 
 85 
 
 Canadian Car and Foundry Com- 
 pany merger, 55 
 
 Canadian Consolidated Rubber 
 Company, 38-9 
 
 Canadian Council of Agriculture, 
 30, 166, 171-2 
 
 229
 
 a.-^o 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Canadian Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation, 2, 3, II, 13, 17, 18, 
 loi ; annual convention of, 
 i47» i59> 163 ; attitude of, 
 to Preference, 19, 21, 33".; 
 and competition with Britain, 
 140, 159 ; and grain growers' 
 revolt, 165 n. ; membership 
 of, 83, 108, 175 n. ; on 
 mergers, 43-4 ; Mr. Murray 
 on, 174 ; and railway con- 
 struction, 55 ; on tariff re- 
 venue, 156 
 
 Canadian Northern Railway, and 
 transport of logs, 169 ;?. 
 
 Canadian Pacific Lumber Com- 
 pany, 62 
 
 Canadian Pacific Railway, 27, 
 131, i48«., i49«., i6Sn. ; re- 
 port of, i69«. 
 
 Canned goods, duties on, 46 
 
 Carriage-building merger, 54 
 
 Cars and carriages, duties on, 
 
 54-5 
 Cartwright, Sir R., 179 «. ; de- 
 putation to, 45 ; and Govern- 
 ment policy, 6 ; Liberal cause 
 betrayed by, 2, 18-19 ; and 
 privileged interests, 4 ; pro- 
 tection denounced by, 17, 
 160 n. ; supported by press, 
 
 14 
 
 Cayley tariff, 45, 145 
 
 Cement, duties on, 49, 50, 52-3, 
 150, 188 ; merger, 49, 50 ; 
 total value of, 188 
 
 Cereals, duties on, 61 
 
 Charcoal, 49, 76, 127 
 
 Charlton, J., 36 
 
 Chicago, 98 
 
 China, duties on, 151 
 
 Clothing, duties on, 155 
 
 Coal, 226-7 ; duties on, 227 «. 
 
 Cobden, Richard, 193, 206 
 
 Coffins, duty on, 147 
 
 Combines (see Mergers) 
 
 Combs, duties on, 155 
 
 Conservative Government, and 
 bounty laws, 72, 117; cor- 
 rupt influence of, 178-9 ; 
 defeat of, 13 ; embarrassment 
 of, 180 ; policy of, 4, 5, 10, 
 12, 15, 18, 95 ; and Prefer- 
 ence, 19, 20, 24, 219, 225-6 
 
 Conservatives, and Canadian 
 Pacific Railway, 27 ; oppo- 
 
 sition of, to Preference, 219, 
 225-6 ; reduced strength of, 
 
 25 
 Contract, form of Canners', 56 
 Cotton goods, duties on, 154, 
 
 188 ; total manufactures of, 
 
 188 
 Crapes, duties on, 155 
 Customs (see Duties, etc.) 
 
 D 
 
 Davies, Sir L., 72 n., 220 
 
 Democracy, spread of, 10 ; dan- 
 gers to, 15, 26 
 
 Denison, G. T., 165 
 
 Deputations, of lumbermen, 62, 
 63 ; of farmers, 164 
 
 Dingley Act, 97, 166 
 
 Dominion Coal Company, 114-5 
 
 Dominion Grange, 165-7 
 
 Dominion Iron and Steel Com- 
 pany, 72, 76, 1 1 1-5, 117-9, 
 124-30, 132, 134-40 
 
 Dooley, Mr., 11 1 
 
 Doors, duty on, 150 
 
 Dorrell, H., 204 
 
 Doughty, Sir G., no 
 
 Drawbacks (see Rebates) 
 
 Drury, E. C, 155, 167 
 
 Duluth, 50, 146 
 
 Dumping, in, 119, 126-7, 133 
 
 Duties, demand for higher, 3, 5, 
 147; on imports, 214-5; re- 
 duction of, 10, 92, 187 (see 
 also under various articles — 
 Coal, Iron, Wool, etc.) 
 
 Eastern Canada, trade of, 159 
 Edmonton, Sir W. Laurier at, 
 
 210 
 Elevators, 168 «., 172, 174 
 Elgin-Marcy Treaty, 224 
 Ellis, P. W., 35, III, 156 «. 
 Emigration, 144 n. 
 Enamel ware, duty on, 87-8, 151 
 Exports, of agricultural imple- 
 ments, 79, 89, 90, 153 ; of 
 iron and steel, 90 ; of rails, 
 132-6 ; proposed duty on, 
 121-2 
 Evans, Mr., 196-7
 
 INDEX 
 
 231 
 
 Falconbridge, Chief Justice, and 
 Grocers' Guild, 64-9 
 
 Farmers, associations of, 30-1, 
 93, 165-6, 170 ; and bounty 
 policy, 85, 133-4, HI. 14^; 
 free land grants to, 149-50 ; 
 Preference endorsed by, 20 ; 
 protective burden on, 84, 99, 
 100, 102, 143-5, 150-3, 155, 
 157, 216; revolt of, 95-6, 
 164-5, 168, 172 (see also 
 Grain Growers) 
 
 Farming, number engaged in, 
 
 144-5 
 
 Feathers, duties on, 155 
 
 Felt, duties on, 56 ; merger, 56 
 
 Fielding, Mr., 30, 114; and 
 bounty policy, 73, 121 ; de- 
 putation to, 45 ; on dumping, 
 126-7 
 
 Fielding tariff, 11, 31, 83, 93, 159 
 
 Fish, merger, 61 ; value of, in 
 1908-g, 61 
 
 Fisher, S., 72 n. 
 
 Flannel, duties on, 155 
 
 Flour industry, attempt to merge, 
 42 ; comparative prices of, 
 146 «. 
 
 Forks, duties on, 151 
 
 Foster, G. E., 121-2 
 
 France, treaty with, 191, 221 
 
 Freight rates, 115, 129, 142, 146, 
 147, 169 n. 
 
 Furniture, duties on, 151 
 
 Gait tariff, 2, 145 
 
 Gait, tool industry at, 62 
 
 George, Lloyd, letter to, on Pre- 
 ference, 167 
 
 Germany, 191 
 
 Glass, duty on, 150 
 
 Glassware, 151 
 
 Gloves, duties on, 155 
 
 Grain Growers, Council of, 166 ; 
 exploitation of, 163 ; failures 
 among, 158; memorial of, 
 against tariff, 185 ; and 
 monopolies, 168 «., 172; or- 
 ganisations of, 165, 168; and 
 protection, 152, 166, 172 ; 
 
 revolt of, 164-6, 172 ; and 
 Sir W. Laurier, 9, 184 
 
 Grain Growers'' Guide, initia- 
 tion of, 173 
 
 Grain trade, control of, i69«., 
 
 173 
 
 Grand Trunk Railway, 131 
 
 Granges, 31, 32, 133, 165-8, 
 170-1, 174-5 
 
 Grantham, Sir W., no 
 
 Great Northern Railway (Eng- 
 land), Canadian rails ordered 
 
 by, 134-5. 138 
 
 Grocers' Guild, 60, 65-6, 68-9 
 
 H 
 
 Halifax, 12, 81, 116 
 
 Hamilton, beginnings of protec- 
 tion at, I ; convention of, 44 ; 
 iron industry at, 12, 71-2, 
 1 16-7, 122 
 
 Hamilton Iron and Steel Com- 
 pany, 72, 74 
 
 Hats and caps, duties on, 155 
 
 Haultain, F. W. G., 208 
 
 Hendry, J. R., 33, 205 n. 
 
 Hudson Bay Company, 160 n. 
 
 Humboldt, Sir W. Laurier at, 195 
 
 I 
 
 Immigration, 27, 63, 143, 148-9, 
 161 
 
 Imperial Conference, 139 
 
 Implements, farm {see Agricul- 
 tural Implements) 
 
 Imports, 22 ; average duty on, 
 214; free and dutiable, 216; 
 of agricultural implements, 
 153, 187 ; of iron and steel, 
 76-7 ; of wool, 189 
 
 India, Canadian rails for, 132-3, 
 138 
 
 Iron and steel, bounties on, 12, 
 48-9, 72, 76-7, 91, 118, 120-1, 
 128-9, 134. 166-7; cost of 
 production of, 72-3, 138 ; ex- 
 ports of, 90; factories, 119- 
 20 ; merger, 63 ; proposed 
 export duty on, 12 1-2 (see 
 also Hamilton, Sydney, etc.') 
 
 Italy, 191
 
 232 
 
 INDEX 
 
 J 
 
 Jewellery, duties on, 155 
 
 Jones, F. F., 137 
 
 Jones, Senator, 103 ei se^. 
 
 K 
 
 King, Mackenzie, 69-70 
 Kitchen utensils, duties on, 151 
 Knives and forks, duties on, 151 
 
 manufacturers, 5, 6, 117; 
 
 committed to protection, 4, 
 
 15, 18, 29; and press, 14, 15, 
 
 26 
 Lisgar, 6, 7 
 Lloydminster, Sir W. Laurier at, 
 
 208 
 Londonderry, iron industry at, 11, 
 
 48-9, 76 
 Lumber, 40-1, 161 ; merger, 55, 
 
 62 
 Lumbermen, petition of, for 
 
 higher tariffs, 161-2, 218 
 
 Lanigan, Sir W. Laurier at, 
 
 194-5 
 
 Laurier, Sir W., 6, 9, 11, 17, 176, 
 178; a free trader, 198, 203, 
 223 ; betrayal of Liberals by, 
 2, 18, 19 ; and bounties, 72 «. ; 
 and Canadian industry, 
 95 n. ; denounces protection, 
 17, 176-7; deputations to, 
 62-3, 161-3 ; meeting of, with 
 grain growers, 184 ; policy 
 of, 5, 6, 182 n. ; press sup- 
 port of, 14 ; on reciprocity, 
 220, 224-5 ; on relations with 
 United States, 220 ; replies 
 of, to farmers' memorials, 
 J91-2, 194-5, 198, 200, 203-4, 
 206, 209-10, 223 ; on tariffs, 
 219; tour of, in 1894, 176; 
 tour of, in 1910, 20, 33, 45, 
 95-6, 98, 164, 166, 170-1, 175, 
 182, 18^ et seq. ; and vested 
 interests, 3, 4 ; views of, on 
 tariff commission, 223 
 
 Lawrence, Sir J., on free trade 
 movement, 184 
 
 Lawson, Sir W., 184 
 
 Lead, white, duty on, 124, 150 
 
 Lethbridge, Sir W. Laurier at, 
 222-6 ; population of, 223 
 
 Liberal Government, attitude of, 
 towards independent Lib- 
 erals, 7, 8 ; fiscal policy of, 
 82, 202, 217; majority of, 
 122 ; and manufacturers, 2, 
 5 ; and National Policy, 12, 
 17-18, 133, 142 ; pledges of, 
 violated, 6 ; return of, 177 
 
 Liberal party, betrayal of, 2, 4, 
 6, 7, 10; bargain of, with 
 
 M 
 
 Mabee, Mr., 109 
 
 McCarthy, D., 36 
 
 Macdonald, Sir J. A., and Na- 
 tional Policy, 1-3, 16, 93, 
 201-2 
 
 Mclntyre, W., 71 
 
 Mackenzie, A., 18, 28 
 
 Mackenzie, R., 85 
 
 Mackenzie, W. L., 5 
 
 McLaughlin, D., trial of, 94 «. 
 
 Macphail, Dr. A., 17, 27, 110, 180 
 
 Manitoba, free land grants in, 
 149; Grain Act of, 174; 
 Grain Growers' Association 
 at, 165, 170-1 ; population of, 
 144 
 
 Mann, D., 168 n. 
 
 Maritime Fish Corporation, 61 
 
 Maritime Provinces, population 
 of, 144 n. 
 
 Massey, ^V. E., 82-3 
 
 Meighan, R., 43 n. 
 
 Melville, Sir W. Laurier at, 193 
 
 Mergers, 36 et seq., 166 
 
 Mexico, 134 
 
 Mill, J. S., 213 
 
 Milling industry, 161 
 
 Mills, D., 72 n. 
 
 Mond, Sir A., 182 
 
 Monopolies, of elevators, 168 «., 
 172 ; of grain buyers, 173 
 
 Montreal, Convention of, 163 ; 
 iron industry at, 63 ; New 
 Feudalism in, 81 ; 
 
 Montreal Rolling Mills Com- 
 pany, 75 
 
 Moose Jaw, Sir W. Laurier at, 
 204, 206 
 
 Motherwell, W. R., 164
 
 INDEX 
 
 233 
 
 Mowat, Sir O., 178 
 Mulock, Sir W., 72 «. 
 Murray, G. M., 33, 83 «., 108, 114 
 Murray, T., 6 
 
 N 
 
 Nails {see Screws) 
 
 National Policy, attacked by 
 press, 14 ; British protest 
 against, 139 ; codification of, 
 12 ; Conservative develop- 
 ment of, 15 ; exploitation of, 
 12 ; extension of, 14, 125 ; 
 and farmers, 141-2, 144-6, 
 149-55, ^7-2 i ^nd iron in- 
 dustry, 116-7; ^""^ Liberal 
 Government, i, 2, 4-7, 79 ; 
 and tin-plate industry, 85 
 
 Nelson, Sir W. Laurier at, 218- 
 22 
 
 New Brunswick, 1 
 
 New Feudalism, 3-5, 7, 9, 26, 
 29. 32, 53. 81, 90, 93-4, 96, 
 107-10, 113, 126, 145, 147-8, 
 153. 163, 180 
 
 Newfoundland, i 
 
 New South Wales, 134 
 
 Newspapers, abandonment of 
 Liberalism by, 182 ; control 
 of, 7, 179; influence of, 29; 
 opposition of, to National 
 Policy, 14 ; ownership of, 
 15 «. ; subservience of, 14-5, 
 26, 29 
 
 New York, 113 
 
 North Bay, 6 
 
 North-West Territories, popula- 
 tion of, 144 
 
 Nova Scotia, fiscal freedom of, 
 I ; industries of, 12, 118, 131, 
 227 ; company law of, re- 
 laxed, 114 
 
 Oatmeal merger, 61 
 
 O'Hara, F. C. T., and steam- 
 ship contracts, 93 «. 
 
 Ontario, activity of granges at, 
 167 ; Dominion Grange of, 
 165, 171 ; fiscal freedom of, 
 I ; iron industry at, 12, 127; 
 population of, 144, 155 «• ; 
 trade of, 159 
 
 Ottawa, Convention of, 25, 80, 
 82, 141, 142, 181 ; New 
 Feudalism in, 7 ; programme 
 of, 5, 6, 8, II 
 
 Paper, 32 
 
 Patent Law of 1903, 12 
 
 Paterson, Mr., 23, 72 «., 93 n. 
 
 Payne-Aldrich tariff, 193 
 
 Penmans, Limited, 39, 40 
 
 Perks, Sir R., 35 
 
 Pig iron (see Iron and Steel) 
 
 Pipes and tiles, duties on, 150 
 
 Pipes, tobacco, duties on, 155 
 
 Pittsburgh, 138 
 
 Plated goods, duty on, 151 
 
 Plummer, J. H., iii, 136-7, 
 138 «. 
 
 Pontiac, 6, 7 
 
 Population, 144-5, 223 
 
 Port Arthur, 77 
 
 Preference, with Great Britain, 
 2, 5, 8, II, 13, 19, 21, 46, 
 47, 49, 202, 208, 218, 219- 
 21, 225 ; Canadian Manufac- 
 turers' Association and, 33-5 ; 
 Conservatives and, 19, 20, 
 24, 219, 225-6; curtailments 
 of, 22-4, 40, 166, 219; en- 
 dorsed by farmers, 20 ; effect 
 of, on consumer, 20-2 ; 
 Dominion Grange and, 167; 
 frauds, 86 «. ; on boots, 155; 
 on boxes, 62 ; on cereals, 
 61 ; on clothes, 155 ; on 
 combs, 155 ; on cotton goods, 
 154; on crapes, 155; on 
 feathers, 155 ; on flannels, 
 155; on gloves, 155; on 
 hats, 155 ; on horseshoes, 
 75-6 ; on household goods, 
 151; on jewellery, 155; on 
 iron and steel, 78; on pipes 
 (tobacco), 155; on rails, 124; 
 on ribbons, 155 ; on rubber 
 goods, 155 ; on silks, 155 ; 
 on trunks, 155 ; on um- 
 brellas, 155 ; on velvets, 155 ; 
 on wool, 166, 189 
 
 Prices, comparative, 32, 41, 46, 
 146, 199 ; of agricultural 
 implements, 79, 80, 97, 98, 
 100 «., 101 «., 102-7, 152. 174. 
 193 ; of bread, 146 ; of coal,
 
 234 
 
 INDEX 
 
 227 ; of flour, 146 n. ; of 
 food, 96 ; of grain, 190 ; of 
 iron and steel, 138 ; of lamps, 
 193 ; of rails, 135-6 ; of sew- 
 ing machines, 193 
 
 Prices, regulation of, 36-7, 50-2, 
 65, 68, 70 
 
 Prince Albert, Sir W. Lauriei 
 at, 196 
 
 Prince Edward Island, i 
 
 Protection, against U.S.A., 84 ; 
 beginning of, i ; and British 
 competition, 140 ; burdensome 
 nature of, 3, 31-2 ; and coal 
 trade, 227 ; and class antag- 
 onism, 107 ; committal of 
 Liberals to, 4, 9, 16 ; con- 
 dition of West under, 142-3 ; 
 cost of, to Canada, 160 n. ; 
 demand of lumbermen for 
 higher, 161-2 ; effect of, on 
 selling prices, 153, 188, 215; 
 and farmers, 144, 151-3, 157, 
 164-5, 185, 188 et seq. ; Mr. 
 Sifton on, 80-3, 175 ; Mill 
 on, 213-4 ; oligarchical nature 
 of, 163 ; and postal rates, 13 ; 
 protest against, by Trades 
 Council, 29 ; and railways, 
 55 ; reduced by Liberals, 202 
 {%ee also Duties, Reciprocity, 
 etc.) 
 
 Putty, duty on, 150 
 
 Q 
 
 Quebec, fiscal freedom of, i ; 
 depopulation of, 144 «.; iron 
 and steel industry at, 12 ; 
 protective policy at, 2 ; re- 
 bellions at, 10; trade of, 159 
 
 Quinsey, J., 222 
 
 R 
 
 Rail industry, 131 et seq. 
 
 Rails, British, 139 ; cost of manu- 
 facture of, 137-8 ; dumping 
 of, III ; duty on, 124; export 
 of, to India, 132-3 ; for 
 N.S.W., 134; price of, 135; 
 quotations for, 139 ; Russian, 
 139 
 
 Railway Subsidies Act, 12, 14, 
 122-3 
 
 Railways, and Canadian-made 
 rails, 122-4 ; and free impor- 
 tation of rolling stock, 55 ; 
 and killing of cattle, 109 ; 
 rates on, 98, 109, 129, 169 ; 
 subsidies to, 94«., 148 «. 
 
 Rates, postal, 12, 13 
 
 Raw material, duties on, 85-6 
 
 Rebates, 81, 86, 88-91, 102, 119, 
 128-9 
 
 Reciprocity with U.S.A., 11, 
 97«., 99, 174, 189, 191, 193-4, 
 199, 200, 209-11, 217-20, 226 
 
 Regina, Sir W. Laurier at, 198 
 
 Retail Merchants' Association, 
 60, 65, 70 
 
 Ribbons, duties on, 155 
 
 Rogers, R., 222«. 
 
 Rolands, W., 197 
 
 Rosebery, Lord, 131 
 
 Ross, J. H., 142-3, 176 
 
 Rowley, W. H., 35, 180 «. 
 
 Rubber, duties on, 39, 155 
 
 Russia, 139 
 
 Saskatchewan, Association of 
 Grain Growers in, 165, 170-1 ; 
 free grants of land in, 150; 
 population of, 144 
 
 Saskatoon, Sir W. Laurier at, 
 196 
 
 Sault Ste. Marie, 131-2 
 
 School furniture, duties on, 45 
 
 Scott, W., 207 
 
 Screws and nails, duties on, 7^, 
 ISO 
 
 Sheets, duties on, 151 
 
 Sifton, C, 80-3, 92, 142, 148, 175 
 
 Silks, duties on, 155 
 
 Simpson, L., 160 
 
 Smith, Goldwin, i, 9, 93 «., 110 
 
 Soap, duty on, 45 
 
 Speakman, J., 213 
 
 Steel {see Iron) 
 
 Steel Radiation Company mer- 
 ger, 63 
 
 Stevenson, J. A., 10 «. 
 
 Stone, duties on, 150 
 
 Stoves, duties on, 147 
 
 Subsidies, 94 «., 148 «. 
 
 Sydney, industries at, 120-6, 128, 
 131-8; population of, 115; 
 strike at, 129
 
 INDEX 
 
 235 
 
 Table-cloths, duty on, 151 
 
 Taft, President, 112, 202 
 
 Tan bark, 40 
 
 Tanning industry, 41 
 
 Tariff, Cayley, 45, 145 ; Dingley, 
 166; Fielding, 11, 159; Gait, 
 2, 145 ; McKinley, 112 ; 
 Morrill, 112; Payne-Aldrich, 
 112; Wilson, 112; Acts of 
 '79, '84, '94, 12 ; E. C. 
 Drury on, 155 ; for revenue 
 purposes, 10, 11, 18, 79, 143; 
 revision of, 82-3, 121, 147, 
 166, 217 (see also Duties, 
 Protection, etc.) 
 
 Tariff Commission, 29-31, 84, 
 147, 159, 166, 172, 203 
 
 Taylor, Mrs., 158 
 
 Thoburn, W., 71 
 
 Three Rivers, 11 
 
 Tiles, duty on, 150 
 
 Tin-plate industry, 85 
 
 Tool merger, 62 
 
 Tools, duty on, 62 
 
 Toronto, bargain with manufac- 
 turers of, 5, 6 ; New Feu- 
 dalism in, 81 ; protest of 
 Trades Council at, 29 ; prices 
 at, 146 
 
 Trades Council, protest of, 29 
 
 Transcontinental Commission, 131 
 
 Transvaal, 139 
 
 Trunks, duties on, 155 
 
 Trusts, inadequacy of laws 
 against, 31 
 
 Tupper, Sir Charles, 225 
 
 U 
 
 Umbrellas, duties on, 15:^ 
 United Farmers of Alberta, 213 
 United States, capital of, invested 
 in Canada, 63 ; cement prices 
 in, 50 ; competition with, 54, 
 124, 126 ; emigration to, 
 144 «. ; imports from, "15, 
 120; panic in, 131; postal 
 
 convention with, 12, 14; pro- 
 tection against, 84 ; rail orders 
 from, 132 ; reciprocity with 
 {see Reciprocity) ; relations 
 of, with Canada, 204, 220; 
 represented in Canadian con- 
 cerns, 62, 71, 1 13-4; Steel 
 Corporation of, 37, 132 ; 
 taxation of railways in, 
 149 «.; trade of, with Canada, 
 22-3 ; trade of, with Mexico, 
 
 V 
 
 Vancouver, 44, 55 ; Sir VV. 
 
 Laurier at, 218 
 Vegreville, Sir W. Laurier at, 210 
 Velvet, duties on, 155 
 
 W 
 
 Waddie, H. G., 101-2, 205 «. 
 
 Wages, 21, 73, 99, 129, 130 «., 
 149 
 
 Waldron, G., 156 «. 
 
 Wallpaper, duty on, 150 
 
 Watson, T., 142 
 
 Western Lumbermen's Associa- 
 tion, 41 
 
 Weyburn, Sir W. Laurier at, 201 
 
 Wheat, acreage of, under culti- 
 vation, 152 n. 
 
 Winnipeg, cement trade at, 50 
 ei seq. ; Grain Exchange law 
 at, 173 ; Sir W. Laurier at, 
 176 
 
 Wire, 120, 124; bounties on, 128; 
 duties on, 174 ; placed on 
 free list, 187 ; production of, 
 125 «. 
 
 Wood, duties on, 150 
 
 Wool, duties on, 188-9 
 
 Yellowgrass, Sir W. Layrier at, 
 
 204 
 Yorkton, Sir W. Laurier at, 193 
 
 Printed by Cassell and Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C
 
 SIXTY YEARS OF PROTECTION IN 
 CANADA : 
 
 Where Industry Leans on the Politician. 
 
 1846-1907. 
 
 By EDWARD PORRITT. 
 
 Price 5s. 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO.. LONDON. 
 
 The Scotsman — " Students of political science, interested in the actual working oi 
 a policy of protection in regard to home industries, will welcome this instructiTe account 
 of the growth of the Canadian tariff." 
 
 Yorkshire Post — " Mr. Fdward Porritt has written much on affairs in Canada and 
 the United States. He is an English journalist who has settled in that part of the 
 world, and has used his power of observation, and his devotion to political study, to 
 obtain a thorough knowledge of the industrial and political conditions on the other side 
 of the water. He has been a student not only of the present but of the past, and what- 
 ever he writes is sure to be carefully considered. His last volume, ' Sixty Years of 
 Protection in Canada,' may not satisfy all readers in this countrj', and possibly in the 
 controversy now proceeding both the one side and the other may draw from it con- 
 clusions that differ from their preconceptions. Mr. Porritt has carefully abstained from 
 saying any word in disparagement of Canada itself or its possibilities, but he attacks 
 with vigour what he regards as a lack of political principles and ideals among the 
 statesmen at Ottawa. What he has written may be read with profit by British politi 
 cians, and this no matter what general conclusion is arrived at." 
 
 The Morning Post—" 'Sixty Years of Protection in Canada' is the first account 
 in English of the fiscal policy of a British colony. Mr. Porritt, who is a free trader of 
 the extreme individualist school, does not conceal his fiscal bias ; but lapses into par- 
 tisanship will be readily forgiven to the historian who has broken new ground, and 
 whose book should take a permanent place in economic literature." 
 
 Birmingham Daily Post — " A reviewer's function is to describe such a book as ihit 
 rather than discuss its arguments ; and it may best be described as a storehouse of 
 ammunition for anti-protectionist controversialists. Mr. Porritt has put solid research 
 and labour into the book, and he writes with point and lucidity." 
 
 Manitoba Free Press. Winnipeg—" Mr. Porritt traces the beginning; of the move- 
 ment for the National policy, and carries the tariff history of the Dominion down to 
 the last revision of the tariff in the Parliamentary Session of 1906-7. He was the only 
 correspondent who travelled continuously with the Tariff Commission of 1905-6. He 
 writes from the standpoint of an ardent free trader, and is obviously an old-country 
 Liberal) wtio was in full sympathy with the Liberal party in Canada when it ira« i> 
 opposition at Ottawa from 1879 to 1896." 
 
 The Star. Toronto— "Mr. Porritt is a strong free trader, and his book is frankly coo 
 troversial. But all who are interested in the subject, whatever their views may be, must 
 give credit to Mr. Porritt for the immense industry with which he has pursued his re 
 searches, and the light he has thrown upon an important phase of Canadian history." 
 
 The Colonial Bookseller, London— " Mr. Porritt, be it known, is a vigorous and 
 clear-sighted free trader, a man who has an excellent gospel to preach, and preaches it 
 as St. Paul preached the greatest gospel in the world, without fear or favour, with relent- 
 less logic and wonderful accuracy. Mr. Porritt sets out to make protectionists squirm, 
 and the great reception accorded this book by all thinkers is the measure of his succes*. 
 Whether free traders or protectionists, however, your customers cannot afford to neglect a 
 book written with such obvious knowledge, such manifest fairness. Probably no more 
 •uthoritative work has ever been penned, and its tone is so magnificent as to command 
 A* reaped of eve« hie eneraiee, tbougb hie fiitaa* \rill be more Ramwova then hi* foet."
 
 THE 
 
 UNREFORMED HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
 
 Parliamentary Representation before 1832. 
 
 By EDWARD PORRITT 
 
 ASSISTED BV 
 
 ANNIE G. PORRITT. 
 
 Vol. I. England and Wales, pp. xxiv. + 622 and a Map. 
 Vol. II. Scotland and Ireland, pp. xiv. + 584 and 2 Maps. 
 Demy 8vo. Price los. net. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 The Atheneeura — " We are glad to note a reissue, at a cheaper price, 
 of a most valuable work on the Parliamentary constitution of this 
 country. 'The Unreformed House of Commons,' dealing chiefly with 
 borough representation before 1832, and incidentally with many 
 subjects of historical and archaeological interest, was issued by Edward 
 Porritt, assisted by Annie G. Porritt, in 1903, and appears again now 
 also in two volumes. Of these the second deals with Scotland and 
 Ireland. Time has only confirmed the view that the first volume is, 
 on the whole, the most useful book in existence upon the English 
 borough system of Parliamentary representation." 
 
 The Westminster Gazette — "The work is a monument of pains- 
 taking research. The authors trace the changes that representation 
 in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Ireland, underwent from 
 the time that the House of Commons in England began to have a 
 continuous existence until the Reform Act of 1832." 
 
 The Glasgow Herald — " It is unnecessary to re-enumerate its many 
 merits, but attention may be directed to its admirable and exhaustive 
 treatment of the Scottish Parliamentary system before and after the 
 Union and of the functions of the Convention of Burghs." 
 
 Right Hon. Augustine Birrell in The Christian World — "So far 
 from having produced a dry book, Mr. Porritt has produced one 
 which, when carefully studied and noted, will make many political 
 questions, which, when stated in the arid language of party strife, are 
 indescribably dull, unutterably mean and miserably commonplace, 
 become lively and positively entertaining. Mr. Porritt although he 
 writes gravely, as befits a scholar and the University Press, has 
 succeeded in clothing the dry bones of Parliamentary history and 
 making them live."
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 »'■!■■■ 
 
 fFC'D [ r,_! 
 
 iJI 
 
 WBff) 
 
 & MAY 
 NOV 
 
 « i 4 1384 
 
 4 1987 
 
 1 9 1986 
 
 Form L-I' 
 2.-)iu-10, '44(2-191; 
 
 l^^l 
 
 UNIVEBSnr of CAtilFORNr^i 
 
 AT ! 
 
 LOS ANGELES j 
 
 LIBRAKY I
 
 HF 
 
 1766 
 
 P82r 
 
 3 1158 00905 1342 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 990 124 o