UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A study of the use of plebiscites and referendums by the Province of British Columbia. Adams, Audrey Marilyn 1958

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1958_A8 A3 S8.pdf [ 14.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106169.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106169-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106169-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106169-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106169-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106169-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106169-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106169-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106169.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF THE USE OF PLEBISCITES AND REFERENDUMS BY THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA by Audrey Marilyn Adams B. A., University of British Columbia, 1951+ A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard The University of British Columbia April, 1958 ABSTRACT This thesis is a study of the use of plebiscites and referendums by the Province of British Columbia to discover: why they were used; what were the advantages and/or disadvantages of their use; and what significance their use to the system of responsible government. Before any conclusions could be drawn on these questions, i t was necessary f i r s t to define their place in p o l i t i c a l theory. Then i t was necessary to examine each plebiscite to discover what i t s circumstances were; what, i f any, pressure groups were active pro or con the subject of the plebiscite; how did the p o l i t i c a l parties react to the plebiscite and what degree of public interest was aroused by i t . To obtain this information, research was conducted into private letters and papers of the premiers concerned, i f available; leading news-papers for the periods concerned; party programmes and pamphlets i f available; government documents and interviews with or letters from former party members and the staffs of the Chief Electoral Officer's Department; the Attorney-General's Department and the Provincial Secretary's Department. Most of the material used was found in the University of British Columbia Library, the i i i i i Vancouver Public Library, the Provincial Library, the Vancouver Archives and the Provincial Archives. There was much more material available for the plebiscites of 1909, 1916 and 1920 than for those of 1921+., 1937 and 195 2 . Where scarcity of material prevented the drawing of valid conclusions or observations, i t has been noted. Audrey Marilyn Adams In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . I t i s understood tha t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of ^ u ^ ^ AXU^~^-=> (^tc^^A^^^J The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. Date / f {ju^uL-17 1 TABLE OP CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 The Local Option Plebiscite, 1909. 1 5 Women's Suffrage Referendum, 1916 1+2 ^ The Prohibition Referendum, 1916 59 ^ The Temperance Plebiscite, 1920 77 Beer-by-the-Glass Plebiscite, 192l|. 97 The Public Health Insurance Plebiscite, 1937 . Ilk The Liquor Plebiscite, 1952 129 Daylight Saving Plebiscite, 1952 ll+O Observations and Conclusions . . . , Footnotes . 1 6 5 Bibliography 207 ^ Appendices 215 iv A STUDY OP THE USE OP PLEBISCITES.AND REFERENDUMS BY THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INTRODUCTION On eight separate occasions i n the eighty-five years since B r i t i s h Columbia became a province of Canada, the government of the day deemed i t wise to seek direct electoral approval, either by plebiscite or referendum, before enacting legislation on issues involving woman's suffrage, daylight saving time, health insurance, and various aspects of the t r a f f i c i n l i q u o r . 1 Yet the plebiscite and the referendum are foreign to the B r i t i s h 2 system of representative, responsible government, which, by both "2 ) the B r i t i s h North America Act, 1 8 6 7 , and the Constitution Act, the province of Bri t i s h Columbia i s governed. Why the governments involved deemed i t necessary, by using the plebiscite or referendum, to deviate from the usual legislative processes; what constitutional issues were involved i n their use; and what advantages or defects their use brought to the enactment of 1 2 legislation constitute the problem of this thesis. Before examining each plebiscite and"referendum for the answers to this problem, i t i s necessary to b r i e f l y sketch their place i n p o l i t i c a l theory, their definition and function, their merits and defects and their legal and p o l i t i c a l position i n the framework of provincial legislative processes. As i t i s outside the scope of this paper, no attempt w i l l be made here to trace the general history of their use by other countries or even by other provinces of Canada, except where such instances are useful i n clarifying their employment i n Bri t i s h Columbia. The plebiscite^ and referendum, as used by B r i t i s h Columbia governments, are the instruments of the p o l i t i c a l practice known as direct democracy^ which originated with the progressive movements of the Western United States i n the late 7 nineteenth century. The guiding principle of this theory i s the exercise of greater control by individual electors over the Q making and repealing of the laws by which they are governed. Its technique i s the i n i t i a t i v e , referendum and r e c a l l . Defined i n general, the i n i t i a t i v e i s a direct law-making process enabling electors popularly to i n i t i a t e a law 9 and secure i t s enactment by popular vote. The specific use of i n i t i a t i v e i s provided for by law, 1 0 but i t usually requires the signatures on petitions of a certain percentage of the electorate, before the proposed legislation i s submitted to the whole electorate for i t s acceptance or rejection. I f , on submission to the electorate the proposed legislation receives the approval 3 of the majority, i t becomes law. The i n i t i a t i v e i s usually optional, that i s , i t i s exercised by an individual or a group on his own or their own volition. The referendum may be generally defined as a direct law-approving device by which a specific act i s referred from a legislature, which has previously passed i t , to the electorate for i t s approval or r e j e c t i o n . 1 1 The specific use of a referendum i s provided for by law, but i t may be instituted by the legislature or by the electorate and may be either obligatory or optional. An obligatory referendum i s one which by law i s required to be submitted to the electorate on certain specified issues. An optional referendum i s one submitted on the volition of the legislature to i t s electorate or requested by the electorate for such submission. As i n the case of the i n i t i a t i v e , a referendum popularly requested, must have the signature of a certain percentage of the electors before i t w i l l be submitted to the electorate for i t s approval or rejection. The plebiscite i s a vote of a l l the electors i n a given area on some specific issue. It differs from the referendum i n that a plebiscitory vote decides a specific question ad hoc and pro hac vice, whereas the referendum is a normal procedure of voting applied on a general system to certain classes of legislation. In other words, the plebiscite i s an expression of the opinion of the electorate on a specific question and the legislature i s not obligated to enact legislation i n accordance 12 with the verdict; whereas a referendum constitutes the expression of the electorate on certain legislation, which i f favoured must become law. The recall logically rounds out the system of direct democracy. It may be defined as a device by which a certain percentage of the electorate may secure the recall or dismissal from office of an elected o f f i c i a l whose conduct of office does not suit his electorate. 1-^ Of these techniques of direct democracy only the referendum submitted on the volition of the government and the plebiscite have been used by the governments of B r i t i s h Columbia.1^ The particular advantage of the referendum ^ i s that i t permits the severance of specific issues from p o l i t i c a l parties and enables the electorate to reject them even though they may have been enacted by the p o l i t i c a l party which enjoys the support of a majority of the electorate. It i s thus a convenient device from the viewpoint of both the elector and the p o l i t i c a l party for deciding contentious issues, which might because of their nature be avoided by the party, or, i f made a subject of party p o l i t i c s , face the elector with the d i f f i c u l t situation of voting for an issue and against the party which otherwise represents his choice. On the theory that only the electors' direct vote can effectively commit the electors' consciences, the referendum has a unique advantage for a l l moral issues. The chief disadvantage of the referendum i s that i t i s open to emotional oratory and distortion or misrepresentation by interested parties, which may so confuse the electorate that i t 5 may vote on the issue without being aware of i t s real merits or demerits, and thus, no continuing party can be held responsible for the consequences of the decision. Or as one c r i t i c of the referendum states: It asks an opinion from people whose prejudices or emotions or passions are stirred up because an issue i s isolated, and whose judgment accordingly lacks the soundness which usually comes during a general election when governmental policy as a whole is under consideration.^ The plebiscite also suffers from this defect, and from the point of view of the electorate has the additional defect of permitting the government to get r i d of a contentious issue 17 without providing a solution for i t . The government, after the plebiscitory vote i s taken, while responsible for the consequences i f i t does, i s nevertheless free to treat that vote as nothing more than an expression of opinion and i s under no legal obligation to enact legislation on the issue. Such a device tends to breed irresponsibility i n a government for i t enables the government to make the subject of a plebiscite any issue upon which i t does not care to take a stand. However, the f u l l effect of this defect i s somewhat tempered by the consideration that the electorate may t i r e of a vacillating government which takes plebiscitory votes on issues to evade legislating on them and retaliate by turning i t out of office at the next general election. It would also be p o l i t i c a l f o l l y for a government to discount a plebiscite supported by a large majority. Whatever their advantages or defects, the use of the referendum or the plebiscite was not part of the scheme of 6 18 government envisioned by the Fathers of Confederation. They specifically vested the legislative powers exclusively i n the federal and provincial legislatures, which were supreme within their assigned spheres. 1^ Yet the B r i t i s h North America Act, 1 8 6 7 , does not expressly forbid the use of the referendum, except for the specific provisions regarding money b i l l s , as there are no provisions for the legislative procedure to be followed by 20 the legislatures. This was not because the Fathers had no opinion as to what type of procedure should be used, but because they assumed that the vague phrase "with a Constitution similar 21 i n Principle to that of the United Kingdom" provided for the system of representative, responsible government and a l l the 22 conventions of parliamentary procedures. The B r i t i s h practice of responsible government did not then and does not now include the use of the referendum or the plebiscite, though the United Kingdom parliament has unquestioned authority to institute a referendum by legislation. Whether or not their usage by the B.C. legislature i s constitutional thus involves issues basic to the Canadian systems of government. It i s necessary here to distinguish the difference between constitutional i n the legal sense and constitutional i n the p o l i t i c a l sense. J Legally, the term constitutional i s used i n reference to the formal document, that i s , the B r i t i s h North America Act, 1 8 6 ? , i t s amendments, and judicial decisions referring to i t , and i s applied to those laws, passed by either the federal or provincial legislatures, the subjects of which f a l l within the powers of those legislatures as specified i n the 7 said Act.2^" The Courts,2'' empowered to rule on the legal constitutionality of a federal or a provincial law, provide the safeguard for the written Constitution. P o l i t i c a l l y , the term constitutional i s used i n reference to the mass of unwritten conventions, which direct, no less than the Constitution i t s e l f , Canadian legislative processes. A law would be unconstitutional in this sense i f i t were contrary to the s p i r i t or practice of one of these conventions. Public opinion, expressed by the voters on election day, provides the safeguard for these unwritten conventions. This distinction i s somewhat arbitrary and not at a l l clear-cut, but i t must be made as the Courts are not empowered ?6 to rule on the p o l i t i c a l constitutionality of a law. This d i f f i c u l t y was especially apparent on the two occasions when the Courts had to rule on laws involving the referendum. In 1916, Manitoba embarked on a scheme of direct 27 democracy as provided for i n an act intituled "The Initiative and Referendum Act," (6Geo5>), ©• 59» Manitoba. It provided that qualified voters totalling eight per cent, of those who voted at the previous general election could petition the government to submit a proposed act to the electorate at the next general election; or that five per cent, could have an act passed by the legislature submitted within ninety days of i t s passage to the electorate for i t s approval or rejection. Any proposed law so submitted to the electorate and approved by the required majority, had to be enacted by the legislature at the next 8 29 session without amendment; or any IBM referred to the people and rejected by the required majority was considered repealed thirty days after the announcement of the result of the votes 30 was recorded i n the Manitoba Gazette. Because this Act would have deprived the Lieutenant-Governor of his constitutional right to assent to or veto legislation, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled i t was ultra vires of the Manitoba Legis-lature: Their Lordships are of the opinion that the language of the Act cannot be construed otherwise than as intended seriously to affect the position of the Lieutenant-Governor as an integral part of the Legislature, and to detract from rights which are important i n the legal theory of that p o s i t i o n . ^ The Privy Council also dealt with the broader aspects of the case and ventured to state i t s opinion, without deciding the point, as to the p o l i t i c a l constitutionality of the Act: Section 92 of the Act of 1867 entrusts the legislative power i n a Province to i t s Legislature and to that body only. No doubt a body with a power of legislation of the subjects entrusted to i t so ample as that enjoyed by a Provincial Legislature i n Canada could, by preserving i t s own capacity intact, seek the assistance of subordinate agencies, but i t does not follow that i t can create and endow with i t s own capacity that new legislative power not created by the Act to which i t owes i t s own existence.^ However, another interpretation was expressed by the Privy Council three years later when i t discussed the p o l i t i c a l constitutionality of the "Direct Legislation Act j . n the case Rex vs. Nat Bell L i q u o r s . I n 1915* under the terms of the Direct Legislation A c t , ^ an act prohibiting the t r a f f i c i n 9 liquor for general consumption was popularly initiated and subsequently approved when submitted to the electorate. Nat Bell Liquors, Ltd,, charged with an infraction of the said Liquor Act, as part of their defence stated that as the Act was not "exclusively" made by the Legislature, which was according to the Constitution,^ exclusively empowered to make laws, but partly also by the people, i t was therefore u l t r a  vires. The Privy Council rejected this interpretation, stating instead that: On the f i r s t point i t i s clear that the word "exclusively" in s. 92 of the British North America Act means exclusively of an other Legislature, and not exclusively of an other volition than that of the Provincial Legislature i t s e l f . A law is made by the Provincial Legislature when i t has received royal assent duly signified by the Lieutenant-Governor on behalf of His Majesty. Such was the case with the Act i n question. It i s impossible to say that i t was not an Act of the Legislature and i t is none the less a statute because i t was the statutory duty of the Legislature to pass i t . If the deference to the w i l l of the people, which is involved in adopting without material alteration a measure of which the people has approved, were held to prevent i t from being a competent Act, i t would seem -to follow that the Legislature would only be truly competent to legislate either i n defiance of the popular w i l l or on subjects upon which the people is either wholly ignorant or wholly indifferent. If the distinction l i e s in the fact that the w i l l of the people has been ascertained under an Act which enables a single project of law to be voted on in the form of a B i l l , instead of under an Act which, by regulation general election, enables numerous measures to be recommended simultaneously to the electors, i t would appear that the Legislature is competent to vote as i t s members may be pledged to vote individually and in accordance with what is called an electoral "mandate, " but i s incompetent to vote in accordance with the people's wishes expressed in any other form.--10 As to the constitutionality' of the referendum i t appears from these decisions to depend on whether or not the provisions of the law i t s e l f interfere formally with the legislative processes. In neither of these cases did the Privy Council decide the point as to whether the principle of the referendum was per se inimical to the scheme of responsible government. Such a decision would require the consideration of p o l i t i c a l aspects and the court i s empowered only to decide upon the legal aspects of a case. The opposing opinions of the two sets of judges as to the p o l i t i c a l constitutionality of the referendum, leaves i t s position within the legislative processes of Canada somewhat in doubt. Other opinions as to i t s constitutionality show a similar divirgence. Halsbury's Laws of England cautiously states the affirmative case: The power to create the system of i n i t i a t i v e and referendum has received, indirectly, approval by the Privy Council and may be regarded as a matter of constitutional change or as a mere creation of a subordinate form of legislation. 3 " The negative case i s more strongly presented, with one c r i t i c emphatically stating that "the cabinet system cannot be driven i n double harness with any form of the i n i t i a t i v e and referendum, except to i t s hurt and detriment, i f not to i t s kO ultimate confounding." This view i s supported by ¥. B. Munro who insists that " i t ought to be a self-evident proposition that their use on any considerable scale would inevitably weaken and demoralize the scheme of parliamentary government which Canada has inherited and developed." It i s not indeed possible to 11 "drive i n double harness responsible government and plebis-cites of any sort without getting ditched" for a "ministry cannot serve two masters — the legislative body insisting on one in thing and the electorate requiring something different." As criticism has been based on the detrimental effects of the referendum and the plebiscite on responsible government, i t i s perhaps i n order here to explain what the practice of responsible or cabinet government involves. F i r s t i t i s a system of government which i s operated within the framework of p o l i t i c a l parties. They submit candidates to the hp electorate, which chooses from them i t s representatives, 4" and after a general election, the party which has obtained the majority of the seats i n the legislature becomes the Government (Party) and i t s leader becomes the Prime Mi n i s t e r . ^ He i n turn selects the other ministers and they together constitute the unofficial executive or Cabinet. The Cabinet conducts public policy through legislation which must receive the approval of a majority of the legislature or i t must submit i t s e l f to a new general e l e c t i o n . ^ The executive i s therefore responsible to i t s legislature for every act i n i t s name. Under this system of government the electorate possesses f i n a l authority over legislation for should the legislature enact legislation inimical to a majority of the voters, the electorate may express i t s disapproval at the next general election by replacing the Government with a new set of legislators. 12 This replacement i s made possible by the existence of an Opposition ( P a r t y T h e Opposition provides a check to the Government's arbitrary use of power as i t i s not only an ever-present c r i t i c of Government policies, but i t i s also an ever-present alternative to the Government should a majority of the people concur i n this criticism. Without an Opposition, cabinet government would not i n fact be democratic at a l l , as there would be no focus for people's discontent and no practical alternative to the Government.^ Only on election day does the electorate exercise i t s authority over legislation, when i t chooses i t s representatives to exercise that authority for them i n between elections. In other words, the electorate does not constitute a law-making body outside of and separate from i t s legislature. "Accordingly, i n electing representatives, the voter has to express a double choice i n a single action — designation of the politicians who wi l l constitute the legislature as well as approval of -the [1.7 policies i n dispute at the moment of the election." The plebiscite and the referendum, which are devices for seeking direct electoral approval on specific issues or legislation are therefore not part of the system of representative, responsible government and i n the eyes of their c r i t i c s are positively inimical to i t . As can be seen, the absence of direct democracy techniques i n representative, responsible government i s , by implication, compensated for by the alternation of Government 13 and Opposition, which gives practical effect to the theory that sovereignty resides in the people. A l i t e r a l substitute for in i t i a t i v e and referendum for these issues which neither the Government nor the Opposition i s prepared to include i n their legislative programmes, is provided for by Private Member's B i l l s . A private b i l l is introduced by a Member's petition and though the Member concerned may belong to the Government, the latter i s in no way responsible for the b i l l as there are no party connotations at any of i t s legislative stages. Should public reaction appear favourable to a Private Member's B i l l , the Government usually w i l l assume responsibility for i t by making i t a public b i l l . ^ 8 Even i f rejected, the Private Member's B i l l provides a "useful opportunity for ventilating ideas and preparing the public or o f f i c i a l mind for reforms"^ not on the Government or Opposition's programmes. As well as being used for initiatory purposes, the private b i l l is equally useful for those subjects for which the referendum is particularly suited, that i s , issues of conscience where the "matters are small matters but the issues are great issues."^ In other words, while the subject ought not to affect the fate of the Government, i t merits legislation. Governments of British Columbia have twice resorted to the referendum and six times to the plebiscite despite doubts existing as to their constitutionality and the existence of the Private Member's B i l l . The following chapters w i l l contain an analysis of each of these uses in an attempt to find out why the government involved considered their use necessary and whether 34 their employment justified the plaudits claimed by their admirers or produced the calamities threatened by their detractors. THE LOCAL OPTION PLEBISCITE, 1909 Regulation of the liquor t r a f f i c was the f i r s t issue to become the subject of a plebiscite i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Neither the issue nor the plebiscite on i t was unique to B r i t i s h Columbia. 51 Prom earliest colonial days, regulation of the liquor t r a f f i c has been a contentious issue i n Canada. Fi r s t colonial, then federal and provincial governments have a l l been faced with the d i f f i c u l t problem. They somehow had to provide legislation acceptable to their electorates whose opinions have over the years run the gamut from complete freedom to total prohibition of the t r a f f i c and varying degrees of control i n between the two extremes. To meet the fluctuating demands the various governments have at different times tried numerous types of licensed r e t a i l liquor outlets, regulated hours of sale, local option for municipalities, intraprovincial prohibition, restricted sale of liquors, and government sale of liquors. By their very nature, regulatory liquor laws are not effectively enforceable unless supported by a large majority of those affected. Both federal and provincial governments have therefore frequently sought to gauge public opinion by means of a plebiscitory vote before 15 16 legislating on the liquor question. The early colonists realized that liquor f a c i l i t a t e d the fur trade with the Indians and so bartered i t for furs. The resulting demoralization of the Indians led Louis XIV i n l6f?7 to issue an edict banning this practice.-^ The edict found l i t t l e support i n the colonies and the t r a f f i c continued. Alarmed by i t s effect on the Indians, Bishop Laval threatened to impose the penalty of excommunication on anyone conducting the trade. However neither state fines nor church sanctions were enforceable and the trade persisted unabated. By 1666, a l l restrictions from the liquor t r a f f i c were removed and i t continued without state or church restrictions u n t i l 177k, when the Imperial Parliament imposed a license system on the Brit i s h North American colonies on r e t a i l sale of liquor and r e t a i l o u t l e t s . ^ Between then and confederation only two changes were made i n the system: prohibition of sale of liquor to Indians and local option for the counties, c i t i e s , towns, townships and villages of Quebec and Ontario. The f i r s t attempt to regulate the consumption of and sale of liquor to non-Indians was the result of reaction against their somewhat excessive drinking habits. Conditions i n colonial Canada were conducive to heavy drinking and habitual use of liquor was both customary and socially acceptable. Most of the settlers l i v e d i n isolated areas free from the restrictions of society and many brought a taste for drinking from their mother country. Children born i n these areas accepted habitual use of 17 liquor, as they were brought up with i t . The social structure of colonial society encouraged i t as backswoodmen relied on their neighbours to help with clearing their land and constructing their buildings and freely flowing liquor was the inducement to help i n these "clearing and building bees." Weddings, wakes and a l l social events relieved the monotony of hardships, frequent disappointments and loneliness of pioneer l i f e and were regarded as occasions for conviviality. Even religious meetings were not free from intoxicated persons as liquor circulated l i b e r a l l y whenever and wherever men gathered. Added to i t s social acceptability was i t s cheapness and easy accessibility. Besides numerous inns, taverns and grocery stores where liquor was sold, many farmers d i s t i l l e d their own whiskey and sold the surplus. In the communities, inns were the focus of a l l social affairs and served variously as dance halls, banquet halls and meeting places for various societies. A l l travelling circuses and plays were also held there. Prior to elections, they were used by candidates for "treating" practices. Under this system the candidate would buy liquor for the group then present. The practice was usually reciprocated by the others and the ple n t i f u l flow of drink provided usually resulted i n drunkenness and frequently i n brawls and fights, sometimes with fatal results. ^Brawls and accidents resulting i n death and injuries were the too frequent outcome of excessive drinking. Loss of man hours and wages and incurrence of debts were other results deplored by the c r i t i c s of uncontrolled imbibing. Reaction against such conditions took concrete form with the growth of 18 temperance societies i n Montreal and Halifax i n 1828 and.in Toronto i n 1831.-^ The emphasis of these societies was on individual reform with the object of producing temperate drinking habits. A typical pledge was "That no member should be able to drink more than a pint of liquor i n one day." The f i r s t fraternal temperance society, the "Sons of Temperance" appeared i n the Canadian colonies i n the late l8kO fs with the aim of producing total abstinence from drinking through educating members and non-members on the e v i l results of alcohol consumption.^ Within the next decade the "Sons" concluded that an abstinence campaign was ineffective i n the face of easy accessibility of liquor and so passed a resolution asking for legal prohibition of the t r a f f i c i n and manufacture of liquor. Other temperance societies with the same objective made their appearance i n the l85>0's. They were joined by women^0 with the organization of the Women's Christian Temperance Union (W.C.T.U.J-i n 187k. 6 1 One of the fields the W.C.T.U. entered was public education. The Maritimes division pressed for and got abstinence taught i n the primary schools and i n high schools and normal schools, i t ranked as an examination subject. In Ontario, after Z p an intensive campaign i t was taught i n the primary schools. The rising generation was being shown a different aspect of the liquor question from that of the backwoodsmen's outlook. Habitual drinking, not only excessive drinking, was becoming socially unacceptable. 19 The change i n outlook was f i r s t reflected i n the legislature of New Brunswick, which passed a prohibitory law i n 1856.^3 The law was i n advance of general opinion and so proved both d i f f i c u l t and costly to enforce. Thus Governor Manners-Sutton asked for dissolution of the legislature over the question. The cabinet balked at the move and resigned rather than authorize i t . A new cabinet favoured repeal of the legislation and i t was immediately carried o u t . ^ The federal government was also affected by the 65 activities of the temperance groups and i n 1874, appointed a Royal Commission to probe the whole liquor question with special emphasis on the operation of prohibitory lax-rs and licensing systems of the United States. The Commission duly reported on i t s investigations but made no specific recommendations. However, as a result of the report the Senate adopted a resolution 25/17 66 i n favour of the principle of prohibition. The House of Commons sitting i n Committee of the Whole House, passed a resolution favouring prohibition i n principle but decided to wait u n t i l public opinion would "efficiently sustain stringent measures to promote such legislation as 'would' prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of intoxicating liquor so far 67 as the same" was "within the competency of the House." The temperance societies were disappointed at the results and doubled their efforts to increase favourable public opinion. In February, I876, a l l the provinces sent delegates to Montreal i n order to form a united front to promote prohibition 20 laws. An executive body was formed to direct the efforts of a l l the various temperance groups to put into effect the following resolution: That i n order that a prohibitory law when passed, may have the sympathy and support so indispensably necessary to i t s success, i t i s the opinion of this convention that the Dominion Parliament should be urged to enact such a law, subject to r a t i f i c a t i o n by popular vote.^g When confronted with the resolution Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie expressed a doubt as to the constitutionality of such a procedure and f e l t that public opinion was not then sufficient to support prohibition. Two years later the attitude of the federal government changed and Senator Scott introduced the Canada Temperance Act to 69 the Senate on behalf of the government. It was actually an enlargement of the Dunkin Act and provided a system of local option for the ci t i e s and counties of the Dominion. It required that a petition be signed by one-quarter of the electors before a plebiscitory vote was taken on the question of local option. If i t passed i t could not be revoked for three years and then only by a majority vote. The three-years clause also applied to a defeated measure. To the temperance societies, local option was just the f i r s t step towards their goal of prohibition, which they urged on the public through pamphlets, speeches and temperance plays and on parliament by largely signed petitions. However several suggested amendments presented by prohibition-favouring Members 21 71 of Parliament 1 were defeated. These defeats only seemed to stimulate the societies to greater endeavours. They enlisted the support of Presbyterian and Methodist churches. The former, i n General Assembly i n 1888, sent a petition to parliament asking for prohibitory l e g i s l a t i o n . 7 2 The l a t t e r , i n General Conference i n 1890, gave i t s support to the p o l i t i c a l platform of the Dominion Alliance: to give electoral support only to candidates who favoured prohibition and i f neither party's candidate did so, 7 3 to put up a candidate of their own. J Neither the temperance societies nor their church supporters had any qualms about making liquor legislation a p o l i t i c a l issue. The federal government f e l t i t could no longer ignore the growing tide of prohibition sentiment and yet i t was reluctant to legislate on the subject. In 1892, i t attempted to resolve i t s dilemma by appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the whole liquor problem. To this Commission-church organizations and temperance societies submitted petitions and sent delegations expressing the need for and desirability of prohibition legislation. However, the majority of the Commission declined to agree with their claims and recommended reforms i n the control of the liquor t r a f f i c , e.g.., higher licence fees, permanent licences, fewer licences, registration and taxation of a l l persons engaged i n the t r a f f i c and establishment of reformatories for the intemperate drinker. 7^- None of these reforms was implemented by the government. 22 Defeated again i n their attempt to have the federal government effect prohibition, the temperance societies decided to concentrate their efforts i n the individual provinces. The Manitoba Prohibitionary League was the f i r s t to attain results. It organized petitions to demand a plebiscite on the question of prohibition. The plebiscite was submitted to the electorate who approved i t by a large majority. Similar plebiscites were held i n Prince Edward Island, i n 1893, and i n Nova Scotia and 75 Ontario i n 189k. In each case, the government treated the plebiscite as an expression of opinion, which i t was not bound to honour by legislation. Thwarted by the provincial governments' refusal to legislate on the subject, the temperance societies once again appealed to the federal government. With an eye on the results of the provincial plebiscites, the government could not effectively argue that public opinion did not favour such legislation. However, i t f e l t that as i t had no mandate for prohibition legislation, and that i t had not been an election issue, i t was advisable to seek the opinion of the electorate by a plebiscite. The plebiscite*^ was announced i n September, 1898, and the vote was taken three weeks later. It was approved by a majority i n every province except Quebec which rejected it.''' The effective operation of a prohibition law depended upon a large degree of support from the public and the government f e l t that the 51.8 per cent, who expressed their approval did not constitute an effective majority. As Prime Minister Laurier, 23 speaking on behalf of the government, stated: The expression of public opinion at the polls i n favour of prohibition did not justify the introduction by the Government of a prohibitionary measure. Disappointed by the federal government's attitude the temperance societies turned once again to the provincial f i e l d with the aim of achieving prohibition legislation. To keep the issue before the public they campaigned for and got a series of local option laws and licensing restrictions. It was at this stage of their campaign that B r i t i s h Columbia entered the picture. By 1907,7^ i t was the only province that did not have restrictive liquor legislation and so the temperance societies organized an all-out campaign to place a local option law i n i t s statute books. The pattern of liquor consumption i n B r i t i s h Columbia resembled that of the other Canadian provinces, but the attempts to alter i t by restrictive legislation had not met with the same 80 success. The province was younger than i t s eastern counter-parts and the reaction to excessive drinking was, u n t i l the 1900's, not strong enough to be reflected i n legislation. A large percentage of the men were employed i n isolated occupations, e.g., trapping, mining, lumbering and fishing, which were also seasonal i n nature. They were therefore supplied with both the cash and the time for drinking bouts i n between working seasons. Small towns close to the lumber camps and mining sites frequently had generous supplies of liquor outlets, both r e t a i l stores and saloons to cater to their tastes. Greater Vancouver 2k also had i t s share of outlets and was the centre to which many men gravitated when they were not working. Notorious conditions characterized by brawls, "treating" and "rol l i n g " of patrons for their payroll existed uncurbed by law. 83 There was a provision i n the Licence Law which provided for Sunday closing of r e t a i l liquor outlets, but i t was in practice a dead letter as travellers were allowed to purchase liquor and a three-mile walk qualified one as a t r a v e l l e r . ^ Petitions of ratepa:/ers against the issuance of licences were ignored as were petitions to give the municipalities the power to elect their own license commissioners. When Mayor A. I. Morley of Victoria asked the Premier for changes i n the membership system of the licensing boards, he replied that such appointments 85 were p o l i t i c a l and were considered the prerogative of the party. Liquor licences were i n effect i n the control of party machinery. These were the conditions i n existence when the temperance societies, under the leadership of the W.C.T.U. i n 1907 began their militant campaign for a local option law. In November of the following year, a convention one hundred and tiTOlve strong and representing almost every section of the province was held i n Vancouver to organize the Br i t i s h Columbia Local Option League.^ The League sought to co-ordinate the activities of the various temperance societies and so produce a more effective campaign. By the beginning of 1909, they had organized f i f t y branches of the League and were busy collecting signatures for a petition on the question of local option. 25 The success of the League i n collecting signatures for their petition began to worry the liquor interests of the province and they assembled i n a convention at Victoria i n January, 1909, 8 7 to discuss what action was to be taken i n the face of the League's campaign. The convention passed a resolution which i t forwarded to the Premier, Richard McBride, with supporting telegrams to the effect that the legislature then i n session make no changes i n the Liquor License Act and stated "Furthermore that petitions having been presented to your Government asking for the passage of a B i l l , i n the opinion of this Association would be most unfair and unjust for this Government to deal with the vested rights of licensed property without f i r s t having been made an issue of the previous election in this Province. . . . " It also expressed doubt as to the validity of such petitions and asked that "the Government closely 88 inspect the bona fides of these petitions." The Local Option League continued to collect signatures for i t s petition and i n February, 1909. Dr. Spencer, supported by a delegation of one hundred and f i f t y , presented 89 Premier McBride with a petition signed by over 9,000 electors and a draft b i l l of the law the petition requested. Premier McBride told the delegation that although i t s petition represented a sizable proportion of the electorate, i t did not represent the majority, and i n view of the additional fact that the electorate had not expressed i t s opinion on the issue at the previous election, he had no mandate to enact such legislation. He would, however, not just ignore this petition but would make 26 i t the subject of a plebiscite and l e t the electorate make the decision as to whether i t desired such legislation. Further, he promised Spencer that he would give him adequate advance notice of such a plebiscite and consult him on the wording. McBride also expressed the desire to keep the issue free from party p o l i t i c s . The League was disappointed at i t s failure to secure a law, but accepted the government's proposed plebiscite with good grace. The culmination of the League's campaign i n the local option plebiscite came at an awkward time, as i t coincided with McBride's negotiations concerning extension of the Canadian Northern Railway into B.C. and he decided to seek electoral approval of the proposed construction by holding a general 90 election on the issue. To make the liquor question an issue at the same election would have confused the two issues and placed many of the electorate i n the awkward position of choosing bet\*een a railroad and a saloon. To have ignored the League's petition and made a well-organized minority hostile to his government would have been p o l i t i c a l l y unwise. To have held the plebiscite before the election and thus disposed of this issue before the railway issue, would have involved the government i n the extra expense of using the electoral machinery twice i n one year. McBride himself stated that the "object of having the Local Option question voted upon at the time of the General Election 91 was to effect a saving of at least fk0,000." 27 Dr. Spencer did not question McBride's motive of having the liquor question decided by plebiscite and began to prepare for the coming vote although he did not know i t s terms or date. The legislature did not so readily accept the proposed plebiscite and i t s Socialist member, Mr. Hawthornwaite, proposed further elucidation of the issue before the vote was taken. He asked that the government set up a Royal Commission to investigate the Gothenberg system. This system, under which the government appointed a manager for the saloon at a fixed salary and no commission from the sale of drink, had been credited with 92 producing temperate drinking habits i n Norway and Sweden.' He doubted whether local option, which was really partial prohibition, could be effectively enforced and f e l t that the whole matter needed thorough investigation for "If such an inquiry as I suggest i t w i l l put the House and the people i n possession of a l l the facts i n this question and they w i l l be i n a better position to 91 pronounce upon i t . " J The resolution was greeted by applause and approved by a vote of 19/12 with a l l the Liberal members and two of the Conservatives voting against i t . However, the Government decided not to act on the resolution, explaining that "the language of the resolution i s not mandatory nor obligatory and so the matter has not been considered by the Government."^" With the dismissal of consideration of the Gothenberg system, the liquor issue resolved around the proposed plebiscite and the pros and cons of a local option law. There was a great 28 deal of confusion over the issue as the government had not announced when the vote would be taken, what the wording of the plebiscite would be, what percentages of votes would be required to approve i t or what action the government would take should the vote be favourable. McBride was repeatedly asked to c l a r i f y these points by announcing what the terms of the plebiscite would be and how the Government would regard a positive vote, but he carefully avoided making any statements of the Government's policy. Early i n May, E. B. Morgan, President of the B.C. Local Option League wrote to McBride asking for c l a r i f i c a t i o n of these questions i n connection with the proposed plebiscite: (1) Is i t intended to defer the taking of the plebicite(sic) u n t i l the next Provincial Election? (2) Will the Government consider a majority of the vote taken, to be decisive either for or against l o c a l option? (3) I f the plebicite(sic) results i n a vote favouring local option w i l l the Government promise to bring i n the necessary legislation? ^ McBride's reply was non-committal, and so on June 1 Morgan wrote again asking the Government to c l a r i f y i t s policy as a local option r a l l y was being prepared i n Vancouver and the League was anxious to t e l l the public what the plebiscite entailed. McBride again declined to state the Government's position and also 96 rejected an invitation to speak at the r a l l y . 29 When half of July passed, without any c l a r i f i c a t i o n 97 of the proposed plebiscite Morgan and Spencer sent a joint appeal and warning to McBride stating that: The over sixty Local Option Leagues throughout the Province consisting of thousands of electors are anxiously awaiting the decision of the Government re the times and conditions of the promised plebescite(sic)...we are much disappointed at having no information and ask that i t may be given to us. We can assure you that, so far as we know the temperance and moral sense of the country, i t i s increasing volume against the Government's delay while at the same time liquor men rejoice and publicly boast of their influence with the Government on this question... Allow us also to state that the determination i s pretty general that men pledged to the local option principle w i l l be nominated i n both p o l i t i c a l parties i f the parties themselves do not do so... I f you can say that the plebescite(sic) vote w i l l be taken at the next Provincial election (when that w i l l be we do not ask) i t would satisfy us at present. 98 McBride's reply was evasive, but he assured his enquirers that he "had no desire to prolong the uncertainty as to the date," but that he was then "not i n a position to make a public announcement." He added the solicitous adjoinder that "ample time w i l l be given between the announcement and the taking 99 of the plebiscite." The summer and f a l l passed without further enlightenment and i t was not un t i l October 19 that the Government broke i t s silence by announcing that both a general election and a plebiscite on local option would be held on November 25>.100 Neither the terms nor the wording were given at this time. At once, Mr. H. H. Stevens of the Mount Pleasant Association of the 30 Local Option League asked McBride: "If the plebiscite carries w i l l you submit at the next session a b i l l to meet the demands of the Electorate?" In reply McBride s k i l l f u l l y sidestepped the issue stating ". . . . the Government i s most sincere on the question of the plebiscite, with a view to carrying out the desire of the people of the Province i n the matter." 1 0 1 The announcement of the proposed plebiscite did not appear i n the newspapers u n t i l November Ik, but the Local Option League was informed only slightly i n advance. The wording brought immediate protest from Dr. Spencer, The ballot read "plebiscite for local option" instead of "plebiscite for a local option law." "You w i l l remember I drew your attention to the distinction when with you last week, and shall be greatly obliged i f you w i l l consider the matter from the point of view stated to the Honourable Provincial Secretary. As long as we understand the situation, i t i s alright but you w i l l see there i s a difference between a vote for a local option law and a vote for local o p t i o n . " 1 0 2 McBride tried to allay Spencer's fears by assuring him that ". . . i t i s the intention of the Government to treat the ballot i n question as i f the. words 'local option law' were printed upon i t . " 1 0 ^ However, Spencer's fears that the wording would be misconstrued were realized i n the propaganda campaign that followed the formal announcement: 31 The Real and True Meaning of the Plebiscite Vote.... the plebiscite i s for Local Option — It says so on the ballot paper.... Local Option supporters say that a Local Option law would "Give the right to every municipality to vote for local control of the liquor license system."...... This i s NOT TRUE and they know i t , but are trying to DECEIVE YOU. A local option law gives no power to control the liquor license system, BUT ONLY the right, every three years, to vote whether there are to be licenses for the next three years or not. 10k Another point of contention was the manner of the vote. McBride i n his statement to the press announcing the plebiscite, did not mention what size majority would be necessary to approve the plebiscite. The Local Option League again took i t upon i t s e l f to ask the Government to explain this issue. However, no reply was forthcoming from McBride and i t was not u n t i l November 2 that Bowser10-' undertook to explain the significance of this point at an election r a l l y : If 50 per cent, of the voters xfho cast their votes for candidates voted i n favour of local option, then the government would introduce legislation, but the terms of the b i l l would be settled by the legislature. 106 This explanation did not c l a r i f y the issue for many and so the League again asked the Conservatives for further enlightenment. Bowser, again speaking at an election r a l l y stated that: It had been suggested by some, that 50 per cent, of the names on the voter's l i s t should be polled before we could pass a b i l l . -But the Government did not think that was f a i r , because the voter's l i s t s are often padded.... On the other hand, some of the temperance people suggested that $0 per cent, of those who voted for i t on election day should be sufficient 32 to carry i t , but we hardly thought that f a i r either, as unless people who come to the po l l voted on the question i t would not show that they f e l t much interest i n i t , so that we decided i t should require 5>0 per cent, of those who voted for the candidates to carry the plebiscite. I f i t i s carried we shall bring i n a Local Option law. Then, of course, the question arises as to what percentage of the vote of any community i t shall require to make Local Option operative. That has not yet been decided. F i r s t we want to know the feeling for i t as expressed i n the vote next Thursday. In the Act i t may by(sic) 50 per cent; i t may be more or i t may be less; but that w i l l be given to the public i n due time provided the plebiscite i s carried i n favor of Local Option. 107 Both the leading p o l i t i c a l parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, decided not to make local option a partisan measure, but to leave i t up to the individual's conscience. The Trades and Labor Council of Vancouver concurred i n this view 108 and refused to consider the issue as a body. On the whole the local option campaign was conducted quietly with l i t t l e newspaper comment or advertising. The railway policy was of overwhelming interest to the electorate 1 0"^ and this plus the fact that the liquor issue was not discussed by the p o l i t i c a l candidates combined to make i t a very minor concern. There were no extreme claims made by either i t s supporters or detractors. The latter published a few paid advertisements i n newspapers just prior to the election claiming that should local option pass, property would be depreciated, investments lost, unemployment occur and i l l i c i t drinking result. They also doubted the T i g h t n e s s of c o e r c i o n of one-half of the electorate by the o t h e r . 1 1 0 The strongest newspaper support for the plebiscite came from the Vancouver World which featured both 33 favourable editorial support and the greatest amount of advertising space for the plebiscite. Dr. Spencer spearheaded the campaign for local option making speeches to various clubs and local option r a l l i e s , writing letters to the editors of newspapers urging support for his cause and replying to those who had written attacking i t . In his campaign he was supported by the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Catholic churches and also by the Canadian Northwest Association of Reformed Episcopal Churches. Despite his agreement i n principle with McBride that the issue was best l e f t free of party p o l i t i c s , he drew up a pledge urging the candidates to support the plebiscite: Temperance people, wake up! The elections are announced for November 2j?. Nominations take place Nov. 1 1 . The Plebiscite vote for a Local Option Law w i l l take place at the same time as the election. Now i s the time for church, temperance and moral people to wake up. The Local Option League aims at giving the right to every citizen i n B.C. to say "Yes," or "No" to the licensed liquor t r a f f i c . This must be done, first., by obtaining a local option law, and then by letting the people i n each city, town or d i s t r i c t put the same into operation i f they desire to do so. It surely i s the right of the people to say whether the liquor t r a f f i c shall be legalized or not. Therefore the coming Plebiscite vote w i l l probably ask: Are you i n favor of local option legislation? Your answer w i l l be "Yes I" Is not this a f a i r proposition? The Plebiscite vote and the general elections are at hand. A f u l l temperance vote on the f i r s t and the election of local option candidates are your responsibility. 3k I f you are a voter and a temperance man, i t is-important you should get into the primaries and conventions of your own p o l i t i c a l party and see that local option candidates are nominated. Unless you do this, you simply play into the hands of the liquor men. We urge you, therefore, to take your place and part i n your own p o l i t i c a l party and use your influence to get others to vote for this principle and for good men. I f you claim not to he a party man, then consider under present circumstances that i t i s best to choose one or the other, i n order to use your influence not for party reasons, but the public good. Many of our best citizens have l e f t provincial p o l i t i c s alone, consequently, we are handicapped by the vote of liquor men and others, who x<rant an open province... Get into the primaries and conventions, and vote as you pray. I l l The Local Option League, led by Dr. Spencer, held i t s f i n a l r a l l y three days before the vote was taken. It was l i g h t l y •i I P attended. A speaker from Victoria prophetically stated that he was "not very sanguine that local option would pass, but urged supporters to carry on education and agitation for local option 113 i f defeated." The balloting took place on November 25, but the early returns did not disclose a decisive result. Local option appeared to have been approved: The recount of the sixty ballot boxes was concluded this morning, and although the percentage of the plebiscite has not yet been ascertained, local option has obtained a majority of nearly 1000 votes and Dr. Spencer regards i t as a virtual triumph for his c a u s e . ^ Dif f i c u l t i e s i n collecting the ballots from outlying polls, working out the percentage and judging of spoiled ballots produced a long delay and the newly elected Conservative government announced that the results would not be known until the House 35 met i n January. Indeed "Some of the p o l l officers have either failed entirely to turn i n their reports or else have made them „ l l 5 i n such a manner as to confuse the returning officers." The f i n a l results x*ere announced on January 20, 1910. To Dr. Spencer's consternation local option f a i l e d by just over 116 500 votes of approval by the required majority. A meeting of the League was called at once to discuss the results and comment on the manner i n which the plebiscite vote had been conducted. Word of irregularities had reached Dr. Spencer from various sources but he had refrained from making any o f f i c i a l 117 protest u n t i l the results were known. 1 With the defeat of the plebiscite by so narrow a margin and i n view of the many irregularities the League passed the following resolution on January 2k: Whereas the f i n a l account of the local option vote lacks about 500 votes, and that i n 18 constituencies the majority was k200 i n favour of a Local Option law, and that 11 constituencies having reached the 50 per cent, demanded, with 536 votes to spare, and that i n the other constituencies only 500 of a " majority was obtained against local option, which gives 3695 majority for the whole province, be i t resolved that this meeting, mostly of men, assembled i n the City Hall, Vancouver, January 23, 1910, respectively, request the Vancouver members of the House of Assembly i n session at Victoria, to appeal to the government for the enactment of a Local Option law, giving the right to the people i n any municipality or d i s t r i c t to decide for themselves the continuence or cessation of the licensed liquor t r a f f i c . 118 This resolution, plus a carefully tabulated account of the plebiscitory vote and a letter of explanation were sent by Spencer to McBride on January 25 36 At the same time, Spencer announced that the Local Option League planned on holding a convention i n Victoria on February 18 to discuss the plebiscite's results and asked permission to have a deputation wait on McBride at that time. McBride agreed to receive the deputation and Spencer began to organize his supporters to get as large a delegation as possible. Invitations were sent to a l l the various branches of the League, to churches of a l l denominations, the Independent Order of Good Templars, the Royal Templars of Temperance, and the Women's 119 Christian Temperance Union. Just prior to the convention, Morgan and Spencer made one more joint plea to McBride to consider passing a local option law, quoting the statistics of the voting to support their argument that the .majority was sufficient to warrant such legislation. McBride made no comment to this appeal prior to 120 the convention which took place on February 10. The Convention placed the following resolution before McBride: (1) Feb. 2, 1909: Presented the Government with petition containing 35,000 signatures asking for a Local Option lav; to be placed upon the Statute books and a deputation of lj?0 x^aited upon the Government on that date. (2) Feb. 27: Premier replied to Spencer that the importance of the question demanded a further pronouncement by the electors and that resource(sic) would be had to a plebiscite - conditions of which would be subsequently communicated. 37 (3) A l l further enquiries e l i c i t e d the reply that the Government was giving serious consideration to the matter and would "do everything possible to secure the i-rishes of the majority of the people." (k) Oct. 26: Dr. Young advised the date of election and plebiscite vote. (Plebiscite vote was Government's idea alone.) (£) Protest of form of ballot - *rords misleading. (6) A statement of the votes. (7) 18 constituencies had a favourable majority of\200, 16 constituencies had a negative majority of 505. Local option had a net favourable majority of 3695. • (8) "This, i n our estimation, i s a clear intimation of-the.will of the people on this question, and we respectfully submit to the Government that such an expression of the w i l l of the people i s sufficient to be considered mandatory." "Therefore we ask, as representing the majority of the electorate and the people of British Columbia, that a local option lav; be enacted." .121 McBride i n his reply to Spencer carefully refrained from comment as to the validity of the League's claims, but noted that they "have received the most careful consideration.". As to the request for a local option law, "The Executive Council after f u l l y weighing the whole matter" was "unable to give any assurance that legislation on the lines requested" would "be introduced at the present Session." The Local Option League was not the only one to question the plebiscite vote. Prior to the League's Convention the matter was discussed i n the Legislature during the debate 12"? on the throne speech. Mr. Williams ^ opened with a c r i t i c a l statement on the government's failure to c l a r i f y the plebiscitory issue: 38 The Attorney-General seems to be unduly praised for the result of the Local Option vote. We are told that the reason why Local Option x-ras defeated was because i n rural districts the people were so satisfied with the way i n which licenses were being conducted at the present time that they did not want any change... Local Option, I understand, dealt simply with municipalities, and had nothing to do with outlying d i s t r i c t s , which were simply under the control of the Attorney-General. 12k The Attorney-General refuted this interpretation, saying, "It was clearly understood that i f a Local Option law should be introduced i t would apply to the whole Province and not to the municipalities alone. That was why a l l the people ,,125 of the Province voted on i t . " Mr. Williams then discussed the significance of this point. He had, he said, presented the plebiscite to his constituents as applying to municipalities alone "and they had voted under the impression that i f Local Option were put i n force i n the municipalities i t would drive the drink t r a f f i c into outlying di s t r i c t s which were under the control of the Attorney-General. Rather than do that they had decided they 126 would not have Local Option at a l l . . . . " 127 Dr. McQuire attacked the terms of the plebiscite. He f e l t that the requirement of 50 per cent, of the votes cast at the polls for candidates, was a severe handicap and reminded the House that ". . . i f you were to place i n vogue i n electing the Government of the day the principle on which the Local Option vote was taken, there would be some vacant seats i n this ,,128 House." He also questioned the honesty of the government's 39 handling of the plebiscite when some parts of B.C. received no ballots and i n others voters had to ask for theirs. Further he challenged "that places that voted distinctly i n favor of local option should not be deprived of the right to exercise 129 i t . " These arguments carried no more weight with the government than those of the Local Option League and so no Local Option b i l l was presented to the Legislature. Dr. Spencer, however, was not yet through with the issue. He asked the federal government to have the Canada Temperance Act, I878, apply to B.C. and was able i n June, 1910, to inform Premier McBride that: ...we have obtained an amendment to the Canada Temperance Act which makes i t possible to apply that Act to Br i t i s h Columbia's cit i e s and counties..and having f a i l e d to obtain the votes that your Government demanded of us, although we obtained a majority of upwards of 1+200, we had no alternative but to turn to the Dominion Parliament for assistance and the application of this non-p o l i t i c a l , non-partisan Act of Parliament, which i s working so well i n the Maritime Provinces. It would have been more to our lik i n g i f our own Government had given us a Local Option Law. Thus, quickly and quietly, the federal government gave the people of B.C. a local option law, which years of petitions and a favourable plebiscite had not been able to extract from their provincial government. ko McBride*s decision to hold a plebiscite on local option seems at f i r s t glance to be quite justified. He had been approached by two groups bearing petitions with conflicting requests; the Vintners' Association opposing local option, the Local Option League demanding i t . Both had a large following. In addition was the complication of the railway question. As McBride had deliberately made railway construction the issue upon which the election was being held, a plank i n the same party platform on local option, may have presented the electorate with the dilemma of choosing between a railway or a saloon. Since he had no mandate to change the liquor laws during the last session before the election, a plebiscite seemed the logical way out of the d i f f i c u l t y . In the event, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to avoid the conclusion that McBride was motivated by p o l i t i c a l expediency, using the plebiscite to dispose of a hot issue rather than a sincere desire to let the electorate decide the question. The wording of the plebiscite was both obscure and confusing. As McBride never explained i t s terms, the electorate could not know precisely what i t was voting for or against. Since he authorized the plebiscite by order-inicouncil,'1"-^'' there was no discussion i n the legislature to cla r i f y the issue. Confusion was so widespread that even after the election a Conservative member complained i n the legislature, that he did not understand what was to be decided at the polls. McBride's relations with the temperance organizations are also d i f f i c u l t to reconcile with p o l i t i c a l good fa i t h . Despite his repeated promises to consult i n them on the wording of the plebiscite and to give them adequate advance notice of the date of the vote, he f a i l e d to do either. The conduct of the polling casts even greater doubt on McBride's motives. The returning officers were given no instructions on the taking of the plebiscite vote and so each acted as he saw f i t . As a result, many serious irregularities, including insufficient number of ballots, failure of each elector to receive a ballot, and failure to collect a l l ballots, were reported. Despite these irregularities, the existence of which McBride did not deny or deplore, the plebiscite received a favourable majority. s t i l l the plebiscite was defeated as McBride announced that the majority was short by 629 votes. He demanded that the affirmative vote should equal a majority of a l l the votes polled i n the general election despite the fact that the number of ballots distributed f e l l short of the number of electors. Petitions protesting the lack of clarity on the issue, the irregularities of the polling and requesting further government consideration of local option were brushed aside as McBride proclaimed he had to "obey the w i l l of the people." Doubt exists even as to whether he was obeying this so-called w i l l , as no o f f i c i a l recording of the plebiscitory vote exists, although the returns of the general election held at the same 132 time are f u l l y recorded. WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE REFERENDUM, 1916 In B r i t i s h Columbia, unlike Great Britain and the United States, the f i r s t organization to interest i t s e l f i n the enfranchisement of women, was not a suffrage group but 133 the Women's Christian Temperance Union. So i t was not as a part of an abstract p o l i t i c a l ideal that women's suffrage was f i r s t brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly of B.C. In I 8 8 5 , 1 3 i j - the Victoria branch of the W.C.T.U. presented the Legislature with a petition asking i t to enfranchise women. The Union's immediate interest i n woman suffrage was that i t f e l t that once women had the vote, they would use i t to 135 abolish the liquor t r a f f i c . The delegation which accompanied the petition was politely received, respectfully listened to and sent away disappointed. The government of the day did not agree that women should have a direct hand i n the affairs of the province. Defeated i n their f i r s t attempt to get the provincial franchise, the women were optimistic of ultimate victory. Women, married as well as single, had been granted the right to vote i n municipal affairs some twelve years e a r l i e r . S u r e l y success i n one p o l i t i c a l sphere would be repeated i n another. 1+2 k3 Meanwhile more petitions and more delegations went to the Legislature, sent by W.C.T.U.'s of Vancouver and Victoria, 137 and Local Councils of Women, during the 1880's and 1890's. The government did not, however, feel called upon to accede to the petitioners' requests, frequently giving as i t s reason for rejection, the excuse that women really did not want the vote as witnessed by the comparatively small number of signatures on the petitions. Petitions were not the only avenue of approach used, as Members of the Legislative A S Sembly were persuaded to introduce b i l l s on the subject. Prom 1886 to 1899, eleven b i l l s 139 were introduced; none of which reached second reading. Though these methods fai l e d to achieve the goal, they did succeed i n keeping the issue before the public. The women were s t i l l confident of success as during this period great gains were made i n the local government sphere. By I 8 9 6 , women with the necessary property qualifications or wives of men with same, could vote for their school trustees or present themselves as candidates for such o f f i c e s . 1 ^ 0 After this success an inertia unaccountably set i n . \ The movement lost i t s momentum and only two b i l l s for provincial enfranchisement of women were introduced during the period from l k l 1900-1910. They were crushed by the Conservative majority during the debate on the second reading. The only tangible gain during this period was the o f f i c i a l support of the Local Council of Women of Victoria. This group was the f i r s t to suggest that a p o l i t i c a l equality club should be organized. The importance of the suffrage issue was masked when supported as a secondary aim of other clubs. This suggestion was quickly acted upon and by November, 1910, the P o l i t i c a l Equality League of Victoria was 11+2 xn operation. A similar league was organized i n Vancouver about a month later under a different impetus. 1^ Disgust at the manner in which the government had jokingly rejected a new Dower Act, which Vancouver Women's Clubs had petitioned for, was the decisive factor i n bringing about a p o l i t i c a l equality league i n Vancouver.1^" Married women's rights as regards property, education, marriage and guardianship of children had no protection i n law but were contingent upon the characters of their husbands. Under the then current law, wives could be deserted and l e f t destitute; minors' estates belonged entirely to the father and even i f he deserted his family he s t i l l had legal claim to the earnings of his minor children; i n certain circumstances, a husband could collect and use his wife's income; he could w i l l his property, even her dower away from her; and as sole guardian, he could w i l l guardianship of children away from her and need not consult her on their education or marriage. *^ The basic assumption of this law was that man was the natural protector of women and children and their rights should therefore be legally under his control. Unfortunately many c a s e s 1 ^ were reported where men abused their superior legal status. The law did not leave women entirely defenceless. A woman could, for example, obtain a court injunction restraining her husband, i f he had deserted her, from acquiring the wages of their minor children. But this was not common knowledge and recourse to the law was an expensive process. Further, the dread fear of having their children willed away from their control, resulted i n many women passively accepting abuse. It was with the hope of eliminating the worst of these anomalies, that the Vancouver Local Council of Women and the University Women's Club, petitioned Attorney-General Bowser to amend the Dower Act.^ "^''' Specifically they asked for a fairer law of inheritance; protection of dower; equal guardianship of children; widow to automatically become sole guardian; 1^ consent of both parents to marriage of minors; father not able to w i l l children away from their mother; and deserted wife to have right to earnings of minor children without court order. Only the dower was considered out of the many requests, and Bowser was quick to point out that i t was not a government b i l l and members could vote on i t as their consciences d i c t a t e d . l k 9 The pretence of a dower b i l l that was brought i n in the waning hours of the session, though arousing violent opposition i n the case of one or two members, furnished much merriment to the House, and the discussion was treated by the newspaper reporters with a facetiousness that was intended to make most amusing reading. By way of a joke the b i l l was even allowed to pass the second reading — with f u l l understanding that i t could not be passed. One of the newspapers, however, did not consider the treatment of the dower b i l l a joking matter and contemptuously explained the reason why the b i l l was allowed to go to second reading: Several members who voted for the second reading of this b i l l . . . d i d so with f r i l l knowledge that i t could not be passed i n view of time limitations. They desired to make themselves solid with a certain feminine element that has been active i n urging the passage of this law... . What the government hoped to gain by deliberately insulting the best organized section of women i n the province is not clear. The effect of i t s crude treatment was immediately noticeable as this group decided to go a l l out for the franchise: Our women were intelligent enough to recognize at last the real value of their present influence with parliament, and that the dignity of citizenship alone w i l l make their wishes carry weight i n the legislative halls. . "with the express object of securing the franchise for women." It was followed i n May, by a more ambitious scheme of organization when the B.C. P o l i t i c a l Equality League was formed. This group had a membership of both men and women and was to be province-wide. It did not anticipate using the violent measures of the suffragists of the United States and Great Britain: There i s nothing of. the "suffragette" i n this sane and quiet movement that i s taking place i n our midst. It i s rather the gradual outcome of thought and education amongst an admittedly intelligent, observant and progressive people.n ^ 152 This resolve was realized when the Pioneer P o l i t i c a l Equality League was organized i n Vancouver The B.C. P o l i t i c a l Equality League held i t s f i r s t convention on May 5, ¥-910, with Mayor Taylor of Vancouver presiding. The Mayor gave the opening address i n which he wholeheartedly kl gave his support to women's suffrage and promised to give i t favourable coverage i n the newspaper (Vancouver World) with which he was connected, 1^ Senator Gottrell of Washington State also spoke enthusiastically i n favour of women's suffrage. During his address he described the struggle for the franchise i n his state and pointed out that "You could not now find a 157 p o l i t i c i a n who would not own he had voted for women's suffrage." However, i t was Mrs. Gordon Grant, who voiced the basic need for women's suffrage i n B.C.: Women in B r i t i s h Columbia have got tired of going to the legislature and asking for amendments to the laws concerning them and being put off with polite assurances of consideration, which were forgotten as soon as the last "Good afternoon" had been spoken. In order to get needed legislation, they must have, the vote.^g A l l the suffrage societies f e l t that their greatest enemy was the inertia of the women themselves. In rejecting their petitions for suffrage, the governments charged that only the small percentage of women as represented by the suffrage societies actually wanted the vote, the greater number of women seeming to be indifferent to i t . By lectures, pamphlets, plays and afternoon tea meetings, the suffrage societies would have to make these women aware of their inferior legal position and i t s deleterious effect upon their homes and families and f i n a l l y be convinced that only with the vote i n their hands could they ameliorate their situation. 1-' 9 There were no groups organized to oppose the extension of the franchise to women. Men and women had to be convinced as individuals as to the wisdom of such a 1+.8 measure. Between 1911 and 1916, delegations representing the various suffrage societies took largely signed petitions to the government at Victoria and were denied their request with monotonous regularity by the Conservative governments:1^0 They were graciously and smilingly bowed out with promises of consideration. But newspapers of those days said the petitions were tossed into the waste-paper basket, "unknelled, uncoffined and unsung." 161 The Pioneer Equality League held public meetings admission free every Sunday i n order to plead the cause of women's suffrage. Distinguished speakers sometimes addressed these meetings. Teas were held with the double purpose of propagandizing over the teacups and of raising funds for more extensive campaigning. During the winter months of 1910. '11 and '12, a series of law lectures open to the public and delivered by judges and barristers expounded different phases of the law as i t affected viomen and children. They were the suffragette's answer to the sneering query "What good w i l l i t do for women to have the vote?" One of the most t e l l i n g devices used by the suffragettes to popularize their cause was the Mock Parliament. F i r s t used by Nellie McClung ^ i n her suffrage campaigns across the prairie provinces, these "all-female parliaments" would discuss extension of the franchise to men, read hugely signed petitions and then reject the proposal, giving for their reasons, the excuses that k9 they had been met with by anti-suffragists. These parliaments humourously, yet pointedly revealed to their audiences that "every argument for popular government and suffrage for men i s an argument for women. Every sound reason against women voting 165 would be an argument against men voting." Although rejecting the violent methods of the suffragists of the United States and the United Kingdom, preferring peaceably to educate the public on the reasonableness of their cause, the suffragettes of B.C. were affected by their more violent counterparts. The Vancouver and Victoria newspapers gave prominent, front page space to the arson and assault methods of the militant suffragists and these "unwomanly" acts were described by anti-suffragists as typical of the behaviour to expect should -i £ ZL women be allowed to vote. Largely to counterattack this opinion, but also to reach a larger audience, the Vancouver Sun T67 issued a special Women's edition on March 19, 1913. It was edited entirely by members of Vancouver women's clubs and discussed women's endeavours i n the p o l i t i c a l , social, educational and cultural f i e l d s , describing the contributions made by them i n social welfare work such as the children's hospital, the maternity ward, the unmarried mothers' home and the sailors' home. These were pioneer efforts i n the realm of social welfare and had been undertaken voluntarily by various women's clubs. Such endeavours showed the women of B.C. to be responsible, active members of the community, willingly undertaking the duties of citizenship, but cut off from f u l l participation by lack of the vote. They also indicated the need for social welfare legislation and pointed out 50 that this was a f i e l d that men neglected and that women would consider their special charge when they secured the vote. The usual plea for p o l i t i c a l equality was a small part of the paper, the editors feeling that demonstrated a b i l i t y to participate i n citizenship was the most effective argument. 1^ The reaction to this newspaper as judged by the letters to the editor was predominantly favourable. The idea of being able to reach a wider audience by newspaper than by public meetings, lectures and teas resulted i n the P o l i t i c a l Equality League's decision to publish i t s oxm newspaper. "The Pioneer" was 'devoted to suffrage propaganda" and also covered "a broad f i e l d along other lines of Women's work." The f i r s t edition 169 appeared on March 21, 1913, and sold well. The need for a stepped-up campaign was quite obvious. On February 18, "a deputation representing the suffrage Societies waited upon S i r Richard McBride and presented to him a monster petition signed by 10,000 men and women of Brit i s h Columbia, 170 praying for a law enfranchising B.C. women." McBride refused their request saying: "We see no reason for bringing forward a 171 government measure to give votes to women." This refusal the Po l i t i c a l Equality League interpreted as indicating that the Government did not consider the representations made as strong enough. The League would therefore have to organzise i t s supporters better and recruit new ones so that the next time a deputation waited on the premier, i t s demands would be backed up by an organization of many thousands of women, supported f u l l y 51 172 by public opinion. To further i t s recruiting program, the League formed an Evening Work Committee. The outbreak of World War I i n 191k coincided with the peak of suffrage activity, but rather than attempt to capitalize on their successful propaganda campaign, the suffrage societies ceased campaigning as such i n order to participate i n the war 173 effort. The valuable contributions made by these efficient groups and their temporary abandonment of their own interests 17ii-added a great number of supporters to their cause. ^ However, the war also provided the Government with a new excuse for rejecting the extension of the vote to women "because the demand 175 i s uncertain and untimely." Yet even this excuse melted away 176 when by 1917 the three prairie provinces granted suffrage to tromen on the same basis as men. In each of these provinces, the ballot was given by a Liberal Government. Especially i n Manitoba was the influence of women f e l t i n provincial p o l i t i c s . In 191k, Nellie McClung stumped the province urging on the electors the triple cause of prohibition, women's suffrage and a Liberal Government. The Conservatives retained office i n the general election that year by a narrow margin of four, but were replaced the next year by a Liberal Government. The new Liberal premier, Mr. T. C. Norris, credited Nellie McClung with the success of the Liberals and gratefully, i n return, extended the franchise to women. ^-77 The connection between the Liberal Party and women's suffrage was not lost on the women on B.C. and late i n 1915* 52 The Women's Liberal Association was formed to help the Liberal Party defeat the Conservative Government. In the election that was soon to come, members of this Association electioneered actively for the f i r s t time i n the history of the province. By 1916, the Conservative Government's grasp of power had become exceedingly tenuous. The popularity which had si^ept i t into office with an Opposition of only two i n 1 9 1 2 , h a d been dissipated primarily by: failure to complete railway projects although enormous expenditures had been made on them; charges of corruption related to the railway construction and failure to alleviate the economic depression which began i n the pre-war years.1'''9 The Conservative Party was also weakened by internal stri f e and there were open breaches on the questions of railway policy and women's suffrage. McBride saved a spl i t on the railway issue by resigning i n 1915. His successor, Attorney-General Bowser was unable to resolve the suffrage question so smoothly. Early i n the 1916 session of the Legis-lature, two Conservatives, mindful of the fate of the Manitoba Conservative Government who had refused to consider the issue, introduced a private b i l l extending the franchise to women. Premier Bowser was furious and after heated debate, wielded party discipline to defeat the measure. He was somewhat uneasy when three Conservatives voted i n support of i t . His excuse for opposing the b i l l was that he had one of his own pending on the issue. Since he had strenuously and emphatically opposed women's suffrage for years, the astonished members of the suffrage societies 53 wondered uneasily what his b i l l would provide. Bowser decided to divorce the suffrage question from party p o l i t i c s by making i t the subject of a referendum plebiscite to be held at the 182 same time as the general election later i n the f a l l . The suffragists were not happy at Bowser's latest manoeuvre for various reasons. Prom the strategy angle, their whole campaign had been directed at women and Members of the Legislative Assembly and now the issue was to be decided by the male electorate and they had only a short time to convince i t of the justice of their cause. Further they argued that " i f a group could be enfranchised by plebiscite . . . i t or any other could be disenfranchised by the same irresponsible(sic) technique 1 the broad truth being that when any minority i s excluded from the protection of a principle a break i s made through which i t or any other may be attacked." 1^" They protested vigorously to Bovrser, who replied by amending the 18^ Elections Act y to admit the suffrage referendum. By the terms of the Women's Suffrage-Referendum Act, a simple majority would decide the issue and the soldiers overseas would be allowed to vote on the question. 1^ The short campaign period was f u l l y u t i l i z e d by the suffragists to impress upon the voters by every means at their command, the justice of letting women vote. Besides speaking at election r a l l i e s , they held teas and garden parties and conducted drawing room meetings, addressed labour at the Labor Temple, organized telephone campaigns and distributed pamphlets and circular l e t t e r s . 1 8 7 Many of them joined forces with the Liberal Party and spoke on their platforms urging the men to not only to approve suffrage, but also to return a Liberal Government. They pointed out that the Conservatives had passed no important domestic legislation during their long tenure i n office. The Liberal leader, H. C. Brewster, on the other hand promised a b i l l providing for equal guardianship of children as 188 well as one for women's suffrage should the referendum f a i l . Mr. Brewster hoped to capitalize on the suffrage Issue and contemptuously attacked the Conservatives' referendum: At this time, when every woman i s putting her efforts and her work into assisting those at the front; when the women have done and are doing so grandly; at this time, when they have earned, even i f they have not a natural right, a right to the ballot by their attention to the needs of the nation and by a knowledge of public affairs just as great as that of thousands of men, at this time, when i t is more than ever unjust to keep them out of their f u l l share i n the management of affai r s ; at this time when their duties are multiplied, they are asked by a government which i s not big enough to give them their rights as a matter of justice to go out and try to convert the male population to the point of giving them the franchise... Another sign of repentance—or the despair of a drowning politician—was seen i n Mr. Bowser's adoption of the referendum idea. He used i t f i r s t for the purpose of shelving prohibition for the time, then adapted i t to get r i d of female suffrage.. The Conservative Party, while permitting suffragists to 190 speak at i t s election r a l l i e s , theoretically took the position that the women's suffrage question was one i n which the party was taking no part, "because i t has been referred to the w i l l of the 55 191 people, and the w i l l of the people i s law to the government." Yet Premier Browser, when the Liberals treated i t as a p o l i t i c a l issue, f e l t no qualms about stating his own position unequivocably on the issue as he said that "the public l i f e of the country... would not suffer by the women being co-electors with the men, and he f e l t they would raise the moral standard of the country." Warming to his subject he continued, "I therefore feel that when the time comes for the women to take part i n public discussions and meetings, that (sic) we xsrill have good order at the meetings and they w i l l see that there w i l l not be so much personal abuse 192 as there has been i n the campaign of 1916." On the whole the suffrage campaign was quietly conducted and lacked the bitterness and acrimony which marked the battles of the two organized factions of the concurrent prohibition 193 campaign. This was part i a l l y due to the fact that the suffragists faced no organized opposition. No anti-suffragist groups appeared to oppose their claims and those newspapers which did not actively support the suffragists, t a c i t l y did so 19k by not oppo*sing them i n print. The letters to the editor were primarily concerned with the prohibition issue and party issues. Those on the suffrage question were rare and nearly always favourable. Long years of education by the suffrage groups had gradually succeeded i n wearing away individual's prejudices on the issue. S t i l l the old arguments against women's suffrage and their refutations were trotted out for the last time for the electors' examination. The two favourites were: that woman's place was i n the home and that p o l i t i c s was too rough for 56 women. Against the former claim, the suffragists submitted that legislation affecting every aspect of the home was passed by legislatures i n which they had no voice. The latt e r was countered by Reverend Principal Vance who declared that " i f that i s the case, i n God's name, i t s ( s i c ) time women got into 195 p o l i t i c s . " But none exposed the barrenness of the anti-suffragists' arguments so s k i l l f u l l y and w i t t i l y as Nellie McClung: The arguments used as weapons i n keeping the women out had been many and varied; and to the f r a i l feminine mind, they seemed so diverse as to be contradictory. For example, i t was claimed that that women i f they had the ballot would become so enamoured with their new possession that they would forsake a l l other pursuits and duties i n the following of p o l i t i c s and public l i f e . Again, i t was declared that women wouldn't use the vote i f they did have i t . It was argued that i t i«mld despoil domestic happiness because p o l i t i c a l disagreements would enter into the sanctuary of the home, and at the same time i t was argued that women would have no mind of her own, i n the matter, but would merely vote the way their husbands did. "]_g£ To a l l this Mrs. McClung appealingly asked: "Were you men asked x*hat you were going to do with the ballot when you got it ? Wasn't i t given to you merely because you were a human being and 21? You weren't asked whether you were intelligent moral or wise. Women were asking for the vote on the same basis. They want a voice i n their own government because i t i s a sign of spiritual independence, a mark of individuality. They also want the ballot as a weapon with x*hich to fight against the things that threaten home and children. " 1 9^ 57 The poverty of the anti-suffragists arguments, the long years of intensive campaigning, the proven willingness of women to undertake civic duties together with their remarkable achievements In the war effort combined to ensure approval of the referendum. It was registered on election day when the male electorate agreed two-one that women should have the vote. Within a year a woman had secured a seat i n the legislature and a position i n the cabinet four years later, and the f i r s t of a series of acts dealing with social welfare had been placed on the statute books. The vote, so long i n coming and so often despaired 198 of, had not been attained i n vain. Premier Bowser's Conservative Government was the only one In Canada which f e l t that woman suffrage needed to be given direct approval by the electorate. A l l the other provincial Governments and the Dominion Government admitted women to the franchise on the same basis as men by acts of parliament. Bowser's decision to submit the decision i s d i f f i c u l t to explain outside the context of p o l i t i c a l expediency. The issue was not, by 1916, highly controversial, 1*^ there were no anti-suffrage organizations to appease and members of his own party had supported a woman's suffrage b i l l . Bowser's excuse that the issue should stand above p o l i t i c s was not even given l i p service during the campaign by the Liberals, and Bowser himself and other Conservatives spoke publicly i n favour of woman's suffrage. The issue could no longer be ignored because of the interest aroused by the recent triumphs of the suffragists i n the prairie 58 provinces. The two by-elections of 1916, had revealed a sharp decline i n the popularity of the Conservative Party and so Bowser could not afford to risk antagonizing the suffragist organizations to which many of the electorate belonged, by continuing openly to oppose woman's suffrage. Yet both he and his party were not i n favour of woman's suffrage. Therefore, theoretically a referendum offered a solution as i t permitted him to deal with the issue without either i r r i t a t i n g the suffragists or committing his party. In the event, the referendum choice proved unwise as i t defeated i t s own purpose. It aroused the h o s t i l i t y of the suffragist groups who f e l t that the referendum was being used to sidetrack the issue and disgusted by this tactic, campaigned actively for the Liberals. As the campaign progressed, opinion favourable to the issue became apparent, and thus more votes could be lost by being silent on the suffrage question than gained, so Bowser and other Conservatives ignored their own band and vociferously supported the referendum. THE PROHIBITION REFERENDUM, 19l6 The contentious l i q u o r r e g u l a t i o n problem came to the fore again i n 1916 and the Government decided, as i t had i n 1909 to seek the o p i n i o n of the e l e c t o r a t e by a p l e b i s c i t e . 2 0 0 s i n c e the 1909 p l e b i s c i t e there had been s e v e r a l changes i n the r e g u l a t i o n of the t r a f f i c i n l i q u o r , a l l r e f l e c t i n g the growing p r o h i b i t i o n sentiment. In 1910, Attorney-General Bowser Introduced an amending and c o n s o l i d a t i n g Liquor Act,^01 w h i c h was to replace that of 1900. While i n t r o d u c i n g i t , he described i t as the "most potent measure f o r the e l i m i n a t i o n of d r i n k e v i l s pr\p possessed by any Canadian Province.' The Act g r e a t l y enlarged the powers o f the p u b l i c i n the vetoi n g of l i c e n s e s . Unless p e t i t i o n e d by two-thirds of the r e s i d e n t s w i t h i n a radius of three m i l e s , no l i c e n s e could be g r a n t e d . T h e r e was also an increase i n the number of requirements to be met before a l i c e n s e would be granted. The c o n v i c t i o n of offenders was s i m p l i f i e d . I t now r e q u i r e d o n l y the sworn statement of the prosecutor t h a t l i q u o r was s o l d and was i n t o x i c a t i n g to place the burden of proof of innocence upon the a c c u s e d . 2 ^ Hours of sa l e i n bars were f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t e d . They were to be closed Saturday night at 59 60 eleven o'clock and not to be reopened u n t i l one o'clock Monday mo r n i n g . 2 0 ^ Further r e s t r i c t i o n s of the sa l e of l i q u o r i n organized d i s t r i c t s were made p o s s i b l e by an amendment i n 1911 to the Mu n i c i p a l Clauses Act, by which m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were empowered to a b o l i s h saloon l i c e n s e s and i n f u t u r e to grant l i c e n s e s only to h o t e l s . 2 0 ^ During the year 1913, a uniform c l o s i n g hour of eleven o'clock on every night except Saturday when i t was ten o'clock, w i t h sales p r o h i b i t e d on Sunday, was imposed upon unorganized d i s t r i c t s . ^ 0 7 These new r e g u l a t i o n s were "a r e s u l t of Mr. Bowser's c a r e f u l study o f the law's 2 0® (Liquor Act) opera t i o n s " i n such areas and "as many h o t e l s had p r e v i o u s l y kept open a l l n i g h t , t h i s meant a considerable advance. " 2 ° 9 Clubs incorporated under the Benevolent S o c i e t i e s ' Act or the Companies' Act 2- 1- 0 were the next t a r g e t s f o r r e s t r i c t i v e measures of 1 9 l £ . On May 16, Attorney-General Bowser c a n c e l l e d the l i c e n s e s o f a number of such clubs " i n pursuance of h i s p o l i c y of preventing e v i l - d i s p o s e d people banding themselves behind the o r g a n i z a t i o n of c l u b s . " 2 1 1 The law would no longer 212 t o l e r a t e the o p e r a t i o n of l i q u o r o u t l e t s d i s g u i s e d as c l u b s . These measures r e f l e c t e d the p o l i c y g e n e r a l l y favoured by the Conservatives i n Canada; that I s , a p o l i c y of " r e s t r i c t i v e l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n along l i n e s of s t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t i o n but opposed to t o t a l P r o h i b i t i o n . " 2 l 3 61 The p e r i o d from 1909-1916 also saw i n t e n s i f i e d a c t i o n on the part of the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s . Defeat of the 1909 p l e b i s c i t e had not i n any way discouraged the temperance s o c i e t i e s ; i n f a c t , i t served as a spur. P r o h i b i t i o n , which had been the u l t i m a t e goal when they a g i t a t e d f o r l o c a l o p t i o n , now became the immediate ob j e c t i v e "Away wit h compromise," "absolute a b o l i t i o n , " and " i r o n c l a d p r o h i b i t i o n " were the r a l l y i n g c r i e s heard f r e q u e n t l y and r e c e i v e d w i l l i n g l y by the delegates of the B.C. L o c a l Option League convention i n 1 9 1 1 . P r o h i b i t i o n was t o be p o p u l a r i z e d by meetings every Sunday and frequent p u b l i c l e c t u r e s on the e f f e c t s of d r i n k i n g . P e t i t i o n i n g the Government was an i n t e g r a l part o f t h e i r campaign and so on February 1 3 , 1 9 1 2 , a d e l e g a t i o n presented Premier McBride w i t h a p e t i t i o n praying f o r a m u n i c i p a l p l e b i s c i t e law p e r m i t t i n g the l i m i t a t i o n of l i c e n s e , hours of sale and other l i m i t a t i o n s . 215 In r e p l y , McBride r e f e r r e d to the negative r e s u l t of the 1909 p l e b i s c i t e , and s t a t e d that the Government d i d not i n t e n d to pass a l o c a l o p t i o n law, p o i n t i n g out the r e s t r i c t i o n s 011 the s a l e o f 21 6 l i q u o r r e c e n t l y enacted. x Undeterred by the implacable o p p o s i t i o n of the Government to p r o h i b i t o r y l e g i s l a t i o n , the League expanded i t s a c t i v i t i e s . By meetings, p u b l i c l e c t u r e s , pamphlets and exhortations from the p u l p i t ^ l 7 the League acquired new r e c r u i t s and new supporters. The outbreak of war i n 1911+ produced a general sympathy towards reform movements and the cause of p r o h i b i t i o n p r o f i t e d by i t . The year 1915 marked a tremendous 62 upswing i n the p o p u l a r i t y of p r o h i b i t i o n . In May, f i v e hundred Vancouver businessmen attended a banquet at which t o t a l p r o h i b i t i o n of the manufacture and s a l e of l i q u o r i n the Province was endorsed by a standing v o t e . ^ l ^ This acted l i k e a spur on other prohibition-minded groups and i n d i v i d u a l s and a s e r i e s of r e s o l u t i o n s requesting a referendum on wartime p r o h i b i t i o n were passed at meetings i n V i c t o r i a and Vancouver.219 j n August a d e l e g a t i o n of f o r t y took part i n a conference w i t h Premier McBride and other members of h i s Government. The d e l e g a t i o n asked f o r p r o h i b i t i o n f o r the d u r a t i o n of the war without any recommendation f o r compensation to h o t e l owners. Some went f u r t h e r i n t h e i r demands and asked not only t h a t wartime p r o h i b i t i o n be i n s t i t u t e d , but that i t should not be r e s c i n d e d u n t i l a p l e b i s c i t e was h e l d on the i s s u e , s i x months a f t e r the war's end. The d e l e g a t i o n asked f o r an immediate r e p l y so t h a t i t could report to the P r o v i n c i a l P r o h i b i t i o n Convention to be h e l d l a t e r that month. At f i r s t McBride was noncommittal, promising c o n s i d e r a t i o n , yet p o i n t i n g out that the " l i q u o r business throughout the Province represented a very l a r g e investment and t h a t the question of compensation was i m p o r t a n t . " ^ F i n a l l y , on August 23 McBride announced that " i t has been decided, a f t e r c a r e f u l d e l i b e r a t i o n , to submit the whole question to a p l e b i s c i t e of the electorate."222 The f i r s t P r o v i n c i a l P r o h i b i t i o n Convention considered the Premier's proposal and a f t e r much debate r e j e c t e d i t . In the f i r s t place the Convention, r e c a l l i n g e a r l i e r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y 63 experiences, objected to an advisory p l e b i s c i t e . 2 2 - ^ Secondly, the Premier's proposal l e f t u n c l a r i f i e d the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s o f contention: content of the p l e b i s c i t e , date of the vote and the time when e f f e c t vwould be given to the vote i f f a v o u r a b l e . 2 2 ^ " The Convention counter-proposed t h a t the Government submit a b i l l , to be drawn up by one of the Convention's committees, to the e l e c t o r a t e and, as the issue ought to be kept separate from pa r t y p o l i t i c s , that the vote should not be taken on the same day as a p r o v i n c i a l general e l e c t i o n , but on the e a r l i e s t l e g a l date. The proposal was drawn i n the form of a r e s o l u t i o n which was then submitted to the P r e m i e r . 2 2 ^ U n t i l the Government chose to accede to these demands, the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s "were to bombard i t w i t h r e s o l u t i o n s from no matter how small a meeting." C e r t a i n , however, that the Government would agree to f u l f i l l the terms of i t s r e s o l u t i o n , the Convention drew up a scheme f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n of the campaign f o r the proposed p r o h i b i t i o n referendum and set up an i n i t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l fund. On a h i g h note of optimism, the Convention closed and the confident delegates returned to t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e homes to begin an a l l - o u t campaign against the " l i q u o r i n t e r e s t s . " The " l i q u o r i n t e r e s t s , " an a l l - i n c l u s i v e term used by the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s or "drys," to describe a l l a n t i -p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s or "wets," d i d not s i t i d l y by as passive witnesses to the growth of "dry" sentiment nor d i d they leave the claims of the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s ' r e s o l u t i o n s t o the Government unchallenged. Delegations representing "wet" o r g a n i z a t i o n s were 6k sent to the Premier insisting that no major changes take place in liquor regulations without a plebiscite. 2 2*^ In the summer of 19l£, similar views were expressed to the Premier by a large delegation from both Vancouver and Victoria, who also argued that prohibition was a menace to investment and would stimulate crime as smuggling would not be considered immoral by the public. Their concluding argument i n the case against prohibition was that i t could not really be instituted as i t was possible to import liquor manufactured in another province. No more willing to commit himself publicly to a policy recommended by the "wets" than he was to one endorsed by the "drys," McBride hedged by replying that the "question required consideration," but warned that "temperance sentiment was strong." 2 2 9 His decision, announced later, revealed that a plebiscite on the liquor question would be held at some future date. This policy corresponded to the "wets'" demands while i t annoyed the "drys." After announcing that the plebiscite would be held, McBride xjas content to let the issue hang f i r e for months without further elucidation. During this period he was besieged with resolutions, delegations and petitions from both those favouring and those opposing prohibition. A delegation from the Prohibition Movement requesting an early plebiscite received no satisfaction from McBride nor did the delegation from the opposite camp, trying to get the Government to postpone a l l plebiscites u n t i l after the war. 2^ 0 65 Finally, after repeated appeals from the Prohibition Movement for a definite statement of policy McBride partially acquiesced by announcing the date of the plebiscite.2-^-1- Contrary to the expressed wishes of the prohibitionists, the next provincial election day was chosen "as the best date because of economy and of bringing out the largest and fairest vote." 2-^ 2 As this statement l e f t the question as to the terms of submission s t i l l unanswered, a Prohibition deputation waited on McBride on or>r> November 11 and was promised a written statement on the matter. • J J Meanwhile, the "wets" continued to marshal forces against the "drys" and plague the Premier with their demands. On November 26, a delegation presented McBride with a petition of 33,91+7 signatures requesting that no prohibitory legislation, referendum or plebiscite, be introduced for the duration of the war; that the principle of compensation be recognized and that no referendum be held except at a general election. 2-^- Caught between the conflicting demands of the two groups, McBride stuck by his decision to hold the plebiscite on the same date as the general election, and remained silent as to it s terms u n t i l his 235 resignation of the premiership early i n December. The new premier, William J. Bowser, personally satisfied with the system of regulation then In force and underestimating both the urgency of the question and the depth of public feeling towards i t , prepared for the new session of the Legislature without reference to the prohibition p l e b i s c i t e . 2 ^ His immediate concern was to find seats for 66 three new Cabinet m i n i s t e r s , namely Hon. A. C. Flummerfelt, Hon. C. E. T i s d a l l , and Hon. Lome A. Campbell at b y - e l e c t i o n s 2^7 i n V i c t o r i a , Vancouver and Rossland r e s p e c t i v e l y . J 1 The Vancouver b y - e l e c t i o n x^as f i r s t and the P r o h i b i t i o n Movement, annoyed at Bowser's s i l e n c e on the l i q u o r i s s u e , proclaimed that they would use i t as a t e s t of s t r e n g t h . They t h e r e f o r e a c t i v e l y campaigned against the Conservative candidate who was subsequently defeated.2^® Bowser a t t r i b u t e d the defeat p a r t i a l l y to the " a c t i v i t i e s of the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s . " 2 3 9 Impressed by the strength of the p r o h i b i t i o n sentiment at l a s t , Bowser intervened during the V i c t o r i a b y - e l e c t i o n w i t h a pledge of p r o h i b i t i o n more or l e s s along Manitoba l i n e s and a referendum. The pledge, w h i l e not saving the Conservative candidate from defeat, 2^" 0 bound Bowser to a p o l i c y of a p l e b i s c i t o r y referendum on l i q u o r . On March 2, a P r o h i b i t i o n B i l l w i t h a referendum clause attached was promised i n the L e g i s l a t u r e . 2 ^ - The announcement served to i n t e n s i f y the controversy over compensation. Opposed to the p r i n c i p l e of compensation, the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s were pleased t h a t the Government made no mention of i t . 2 ^ " 2 The l i c e n s e - h o l d e r s also i n t e r p r e t e d the Government's s i l e n c e on the i s s u e as meaning no compensation. They responded by sending a d e l e g a t i o n to the Premier w i t h claims f o r compensation. They reminded Bowser th a t only a few years e a r l i e r h i s Liquor Act Amendments had i n v o l v e d them i n heavy expenditures f o r f i t t i n g up t h e i r premises i n t o h o t e l s ; and that many were s t i l l i n debt f o r these improvements. To pro t e c t these claims, they formed a Workers' Equal Rights 67 A s s o c i a t i o n and began to organize province-wide . 2 ^ - 3 Meanwhile many church congregations endorsed the Government's p o l i c y and sent r e s o l u t i o n s requesting t h a t the p r i n c i p l e of compensation be denied. On May L|., a l a r g e P r o h i b i t i o n meeting i n V i c t o r i a passed a unanimous r e s o l u t i o n expressing a p p r e c i a t i o n and support of the Government's p o l i c y and also v o i c i n g o p p o s i t i o n to compensation to the l i q u o r vendors. Not to be outdone, on May 6, a d e l e g a t i o n l e d by Lieutenant A. E. Tulk, Charles Wilson, Q. C., and others, r e p r e s e n t i n g the Merchants' P r o t e c t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n waited upon Premier Bowser to p r o t e s t the p o l i c y of "non-compensation. n^<h This controversy, which raged a l l A p r i l and May and inundated the Premier w i t h l e t t e r s , r e s o l u t i o n s , p e t i t i o n s and d e l e g a t i o n s , was c a r r i e d to the newspapers which began to contain advertisements as to the merits and demerits of P r o h i b i t i o n . In the meantime Bowser had the s e s s i o n of the L e g i s l a t u r e extended i n order t o provide f o r l e g i s l a t i o n on the p r o h i b i t i o n referendum and the s o l d i e r s ' v o t e . 2 ^ P r o v i d i n g f o r f a c i l i t i e s f o r the s o l d i e r s overseas to vote robbed the "wets" of one of t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s to a wartime p l e b i s c i t e as they had contended that i t was u n f a i r to h o l d a p l e b i s c i t e i f the men overseas were unable to record t h e i r vote on the i s s u e . Brewster challenged the l e g a l i t y o f t h i s extension and also the v a l i d i t y of l e g i s l a t i o n passed during i t . While t h i s contention d i d not confuse the referendum issue during the ensuing p o l i t i c a l campaign, i t caused d i f f i c u l t y a f t e r the vote was taken. 68 The campaign on the l i q u o r issue was a s t r u g g l e between e x t r e m i s t s . I t was a b a t t l e r o y a l conducted e n t i r e l y i n exclamation p o i n t s , f e a t u r i n g w i l d and l a r g e l y u n s u b s t a n t i a t e charges and claims, f i s t f i g h t s at p u b l i c meetings and indeed, everything but the voice of the moderates. The P r o h i b i t i o n Movement was determined to destroy f o r evermore the p e r n i c i o u s " l i q u o r t r a f f i c , " which i t charged w i t h "destroying homes, debasing c i t i z e n s h i p , p o l l u t i n g p o l i t i c s , wronging childhood, degrading womanhood, commercializing debauchery and c o i n i n g p r o f i t from causing human misery, s i n , shame, want, i n s a n i t y , sickness and death." Worse yet, the "Traitorous T r a f f i c " asked the " l o y a l , r i g h t - l o v i n g c i t i z e n s of B.C. to vote i t the r i g h t to continue i t s humanity-cursing, n a t i o n - d e s t r o y i n g work by v o t i n g against the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act." The e l e c t o r a t e was exhorted to "be B r i t i s h " and " f o l l o w the King" who had adopted p r o h i b i t i o n f o r the d u r a t i o n o f the war. L l o y d George's famous speech "We are f i g h t i n g Germany, A u s t r i a and Drink, and as f a r as I can see, the greatest o f these three deadly foes i s Drink" was a p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e slogan used against the l i q u o r t r a f f i c . 2 1 1 - 6 A b o l i t i o n of the l i q u o r t r a f f i c would also save the people of B.C. m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s and create employment as i t would free c a p i t a l then in v e s t e d i n the l i q u o r trade and make i t a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e f u l i n d u s t r y which would employ four times as many men as i t then employed. Besides saving money f o r the people and thus improving t h e i r w e l f a r e , i t was p a t r i o t i c to vot 69 i n favour of the referendum as much of " l i q u o r ' s money" now "goes outside to German brewers and the whiskey r i n g o f B r i t a i n and Canada, which has re m o r s e l e s s l y sought t o t i g h t e n i t s g r i p on the throat of the Empire i n t h i s time o f n a t i o n a l s t r e s s . " The voters were also warned not to be confused by the "Whiskey Combine" who argued t h a t the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act d i d not p r o h i b i t . Proof that i t d i d r e s t e d i n the f a c t that the " l i q u o r i n t e r e s t s " had opened t h e i r "boodle b a r r e l " i n a desperate attempt to defeat the referendum. 2^-7 To help impress the e l e c t o r a t e w i t h the e v i l s of l i q u o r consumption and the v i r t u e s of p r o h i b i t i o n , the People's P r o h i b i t i o n Movement i n v i t e d B i l l y Sunday, a l e a d i n g American temperance preacher, to address r a l l i e s i n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a . I n a campaign f e a t u r i n g extremes, B i l l y Sunday was p e r f e c t f o r the p a r t . "Drink," he t o l d an overflow crowd, mostly women, assembled at the Arena, " i s the b i t t e r e s t enemy of the human race that ever belched and vomited out o f h e l l . " "Whiskey i s a l l r i g h t i n i t s p l a c e , but i t s place i s i n h e l l and the sooner i t gets there the b e t t e r . " These statements were f o r t i f i e d w i t h s t a t i s t i c s f o r which no source was given : "Seventy-five per cent, o f our i d i o t s come from d r i n k i n g parents. E i g h t y per cent, of the paupers are whiskey made paupers. Eighty-two per cent, of crime i s committed by w h i s k e y . " 2 ^ Having harangued Vancouverites against continuing the d i s a s t r o u s saloon system, he departed to t r e a t V i c t o r i a to a s i m i l a r d i a t r i b e . 70 The "wets" centred t h e i r a t t a c k against the referendum on the charge that the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act d i d not p r o h i b i t d r i n k i n g as the P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t u r e d i d not have the power to r e s t r i c t the imp o r t a t i o n of l i q u o r i n t o B.C. from other provinces of Canada or the United S t a t e s . The Act, i n f a c t , they claimed, only p r o h i b i t e d the p u b l i c s a l e o f l i q u o r f o r beverage purposes. I t was th e r e f o r e a " g o l d b r i c k " which " w i l l not and never was intended to r e s t r i c t the consumption of l i q u o r . " Instead of p r o h i b i t i n g d r i n k i n g , the Act would r e s u l t i n the establishment of u n c o n t r o l l e d , i l l e g a l d r i n k i n g i n " b l i n d - p i g s " and would e n r i c h bootleggers. Further, they warned, i t would produce unemployment, r a i s e taxes and send thousands o f d o l l a r s out of the province. The a n t i - p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s resented as a s l u r the charge that d r i n k i n g and the l i q u o r i n d u s t r y were u n p a t r i o t i c . Admiral J e l l i c o e and General Haig were both connected w i t h the l i q u o r trade as were 12lk men e n l i s t e d i n the B.C. f o r c e s . Furthermore, the Act was " u n - B r i t i s h " as i t provided f o r f o r c i b l e e n t r y of premises on the strength of an accusation by an unnamed accuser and the accused had to prove h i s innocence. I t was c l e a r l y a choice between "the B r i t i s h f l a g or the Constable's c l u b . " 2 ^ The b a t t l e was fought d a i l y and i n c r e a s i n g l y v o c i f e r -ously i n the newspapers, through p a i d advertisements, l e t t e r s to the e d i t o r s and e d i t o r i a l s . F e e l i n g s on the issue r a n so h i g h that some newspapers s o l d t h e i r l e t t e r s to the e d i t o r space at c l a s s i f i e d r a t e s as the only f a i r means of s e l e c t i n g m a t e r i a l 71 f o r these columns. 2^ 0 The Vancouver World refused o u t r i g h t e i t h e r to s e l l space to the "wets" or p r i n t l e t t e r s to the e d i t o r which were anti-referendum. High f e e l i n g s were also much i n evidence at p o l i t i c a l r a l l i e s where speakers pro and con the l i q u o r i s s u e u s u a l l y d e l i v e r e d t h e i r speeches. Frequent i n t e r r u p t i o n s , h e c k l i n g and questions from the f l o o r o f t e n produced bedlam, and not i n f r e q u e n t l y , f i s t f i g h t s . 2 ^ 1 Nor d i d the churches l e t the vote be taken without guidance from the p u l p i t and three monster r a l l i e s , organized by the F i r s t P r e s b y t e r i a n , the Congregational and M e t r o p o l i t a n Churches exhorted t h e i r audiences to vote "yes" on the referendum. "The bar room must go" and "come and save the b a i r n s " were the r a l l y i n g c r i e s at these meetings. 2-' 2 The trade unions o f Vancouver and New Westminster went q u i e t l y on record against the referendum. Unaccompanied by any of the no i s y h u c k s t e r i n g indulged i n by the "drys," the "wets" and various church groups, the Vancouver Trades and Labor Council adopted a r e s o l u t i o n " i n harmony w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e bodies of organized l a b o r elsewhere," placed " i t s e l f upon r e c o r d as opposed to the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act and to the p r i n c i p l e enshrined t h e r e i n . " I n a l i k e manner, the New Westminster Trades Council adopted a s i m i l a r r e s o l u t i o n that " t h i s Council go on record as opposed t o P r o h i b i t i o n as contained i n the proposed b i l l , from an economic and s o c i a l standpoint, and report t h i s d e c i s i o n to the various unions, w i t h the request that they help to defeat the present measure." 2^ 72 I t would have been d i f f i c u l t to keep such a contentious issue f r e e from p a r t y p o l i t i c s , but despite claims to the contrary, no r e a l e f f o r t was made to do so. As e a r l y as 1912, the L i b e r a l P a r t y had placed a temperance plank i n i t s p l a t f o r m and the 1916 p l a t f o r m contained one favouring the adoption of p r o h i b i t i o n . 2 ^ " The L i b e r a l s traded f r a n k l y on t h e i r "dry" r e p u t a t i o n during the e l e c t i o n campaign. Though warned i n August of 1915 and again i n December 2^ th a t a p r o h i b i t i o n act would sweep the Conservatives i n t o o f f i c e and that s i l e n c e on the issue would weaken t h e i r chances at the p o l l s , McBride refused to adopt such a p r i n c i p l e . Premier Bowser was e q u a l l y unreceptive to the claims of p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s u n t i l the by-e l e c t i o n defeats e a r l y i n 1916. Even then he refused to l e g i s l a t e f o r p r o h i b i t i o n o u t r i g h t , s t a t i n g that the iss u e was one which the people themselves should decide, free from p a r t y p o l i t i c s . 2 ^ He was prepared t o abide by the people's d e c i s i o n . However, the long a n t i - p r o h i b i t i o n h i s t o r y of the Conservative P a r t y , which the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s c o n s t a n t l y c i t e d , overweighed the c o n c i l i a t o r y referendum p o l i c y . To most of the e l e c t o r a t e the Conservative Party and a "wet" l i q u o r p o l i c y were in s e p a r a b l e . I t was thus very much a p a r t i s a n i s s u e on which the voters cast t h e i r b a l l o t s on e l e c t i o n day. "Aboli s h the saloon and dr i v e out the d i v e " sentiments triumphed as 36,14-90 to 27,217 of the c i v i l i a n e l e c t o r a t e s a i d "yes" to the referendum "Are you i n favor of b r i n g i n g the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act i n t o f o r c e ? " 2 5 7 b a l l o t i n g of the s o l d i e r s 73 at home was very close w i t h 3,353 f o r and 3,622 a g a i n s t . The f i r s t returns of the s o l d i e r s overseas showed a great d i s p a r i t y w i t h only 2 ,06l favourable and 5,263 against. Voting continued u n t i l December 16, 1 9 l 6 . 2 - ^ According to the terms of the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act, a simple m a j o r i t y was s u f f i c i e n t to approve or defeat the measure and as the overseas vote was s u f f i c i e n t (20,000) i f a negative vote was returned, to upset the favourable c i v i l i a n m a j o r i t y of 5,802, the nex-jly e l e c t e d Premier Brewster's hands were t i e d as f a r as the p r o h i b i t i o n issue was concerned u n t i l the f i n a l count was made.2-'9 The P r o h i b i t i o n i s t s ' exultarice changed to dismay as the continuing returns showed that a negative m a j o r i t y was h i g h l y p o s s i b l e . They charged i r r e g u l a r v o t i n g methods and c o n d i t i o n s i n the re c o r d i n g of the overseas b a l l o t s . Repeating the o l d p a t t e r n , delegations pro and con waited on the Premier f o r months. The "drys" urged that p r o h i b i t i o n as provided f o r by the referendum be i n s t i t u t e d as the overseas vote was f r a u d u l e n t , w h i l e the "wets" claimed t h a t the referendum vote must decide the issue and that there was no mandate f o r l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n apart from i t . Meanwhile, S i r Richard McBride, the Agent-General f o r B.C. i n London, was charged w i t h s u p e r v i s i n g the b a l l o t count as the v o t i n g continued. I t was f i n a l l y stopped because of some 1,500 votes i n d i s p u t e . At t h i s point the Government and the Agent-General c a l l e d i n an eminent counsel,. S i r John Simon, to decide the i s s u e . He advised that the votes should be counted. The f i n a l t a l l y upset the favourable c i v i l i a n t o t a l and so the referendum was defeated. 7k Brewster was i n an awkward p o s i t i o n . Ought he to go ahead w i t h p r o h i b i t o r y l e g i s l a t i o n i n accordance w i t h the L i b e r a l s ' e l e c t o r a l p l a t f o r m or regard the negative referendum vote as ending the issue? The vo c i f e r o u s a c t i v i t i e s of the P r o h i b i t i o n i s t s , who charged crooked work i n the taking, of the vote r e s o l v e d h i s dilemma. To appease them, he appointed a Royal Commission to examine the whole question o f the s o l d i e r s ' vote to determine whether t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n s and imputations were v a l i d . The Report of the Royal Commission was presented to the L e g i s l a t u r e on August 1917, and stat e d that of the 8 ,£o5 votes cast a f t e r September li|., 191&, 1+,697 should be r e j e c t e d because of i r r e g u l a r i t i e s . 2 ^ 1 The Government r e s o l v e d the long controversy by choosing to accept the report and passed an Act b r i n g i n g the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act i n t o o p e r a t i o n on October 1, 1 9 1 7 . 2 6 2 Then came a s h o r t - l i v e d pause i n the long, b i t t e r l y contentious struggle between the "wets" and the "drys," w h i l e the Province experimented w i t h a curious type o f p r o h i b i t i o n , which i n r e a l i t y o n l y closed the saloons and ended the p u b l i c r e t a i l s ale o f l i q u o r w i t h i n the province. The l i q u o r controversy, coming to a head i n an e l e c t i o n year, placed Bowser i n an awkward p o s i t i o n p o l i t i c a l l y . With the organized clamourings of "wet" and "dry" s o c i e t i e s , i t was impossible to do nothing about the l i q u o r question. As the 75 l e a d e r of the p a r t y which f o r years had opposed p r o h i b i t i o n , sudden conversion to i t would have been regarded as a vote-catching device, as w e l l as antagonizing the a n t i - p r o h i b i t i o n element. On the other hand, i f he r e j e c t e d p r o h i b i t i o n , he would be regarded as a t o o l of the "wets" and so l o s e the support o f the "drys." He compromised by making p r o h i b i t i o n the subject of a p l e b i s c i t o r y referendum. Bowser d i d not view the l i q u o r referendum as a p o l i t i c a l l y expedient measure. He claimed that the l i q u o r question was a moral one and so should not be dealt w i t h i n the framework of p a r t y p o l i t i c s . I n the event, the non-partisan outlook was observed only by the Conservatives. The L i b e r a l s , c o r r e c t l y assessing the trend of p u b l i c o p i n i o n , d i d not h e s i t a t e to support p r o h i b i t i o n . I s o l a t i o n of the l i q u o r question also made i t very vulnerable to the claims of the extremists o f both the p r o h i b i t i o n and a n t i - p r o h i b i t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Their propaganda both d i s t o r t e d and misrepresented the referendum. In f a c t the haze of charge and counter-charge obscured the r e a l i s s u e , the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n A c t . A l a r g e s e c t i o n of the e l e c t o r a t e mistakenly thought they were v o t i n g f o r p r o h i b i t i o n i n the abstract and not f o r a s p e c i f i c Act. The Conservative Government f a i l e d to provide adequate safeguards f o r the t a k i n g Of the overseas vote. The r e s u l t i n g confusion over the v a l i d i t y o f the vote cast doubt as to whether the approval of the P r o h i b i t i o n Act r e a l l y represented the 76 m a j o r i t y of the e l e c t o r a t e . Yet e f f e c t i v e enforcement of such l e g i s l a t i o n depended on the support of a l a r g e m a j o r i t y . There i s nothing to suggest that t h i s l a x i t y was d e l i b e r a t e . THE TEMPERANCE PLEBISCITE, 1920 The experiment with prohibition revealed flaws which led to widespread public dissatisfaction. The chief d i f f i c u l t y lay in the change in the public's attitude towards i t . The high moral tone of "no sacrifice too great" which produced the wartime measure did not carry over into peacetime. Many f e l t that the act was only an emergency measure and should now be repealed. Veterans' clubs and service clubs insisted on the right to use and s e l l beer or wine. Those who expected prohibition would end or at least greatly reduce consumption of liquor had also been disillusioned. As i t was impossible for the Provincial Government to prohibit private importation of liquor, those xjho could afford i t were able to import a l l they desired. Liquor could also be obtained by a doctor's prescription. The practice became farcia l as prescriptions were issued by the thousands every month. So widespread was this practice that i t was ". . . d i f f i c u l t at times to maintain a supply of liquor sufficient to meet the demands made upon the vendors from day to day, which kept increasing towards the end of the year to an extent quite unlooked for."2^3 The i l l i c i t sources, bootleggers, " s t i l l e r s " and blind-pig operators provided a 77 78 steady flow of a l c o h o l f o r a l l who were w i l l i n g to meet t h e i r p r i c e s . In face of p u b l i c i n d i f f e r e n c e or sympathy w i t h the i l l i c i t s u p p l i e r s , the p o l i c e , p r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l , were inadequate to cope w i t h the extensive e x t r a l e g a l p r a c t i c e s . The m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were d i s g r u n t l e d as they were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n f o r c i n g the Act w i t h i n t h e i r d i s t r i c t s , but were deprived of the revenue they had formerly r e c e i v e d from sale of l i q u o r l i c e n c e s . Law enforcement on the whole was l a x and the Opposition c o n s t a n t l y c r i t i c i z e d the Government f o r non-enforcement of the la w . 2 ^ -P r o h i b i t i o n provided the new Premier, O l i v e r , w i t h another embarrassing problem, that of compensating the l i c e n s e -holders \tfhose business had been terminated by the P r o h i b i t i o n Act. Before i n t r o d u c i n g the b i l l to the L e g i s l a t u r e i n 1915, the Lieutenant-Governor had e x t r a c t e d a promise from Premier Bowser that an independent commission would be set up to i n v e s t i g a t e the question of c o m p e n s a t i o n . H e had taken the same p o s i t i o n i n regard to Premier Brewster's P r o h i b i t i o n Act of 1917 and Brewster had also promised to appoint such a commission. The Lieutenant-Governor wanted to know why the Government had not yet appointed such a commission i n view of these promises. Former l i c e n s e - h o l d e r s had formed an A s s o c i a t i o n and a p p l i e d to the Government f o r recompense. 2^ O l i v e r explained h i s delay by c l a i m i n g that he was " . . . convinced that the a t t i t u d e of the present L e g i s l a t u r e (March, 1919) would be opposed to the payment of compensation" although he had never 79 "taken any other position than that there was an obligation resting upon the present government at least to very carefully consider the appointment of the suggested commission." He also recommended to his cabinet colleagues that such a Royal Commission would have to be appointed soon as undoubtedly there would be a demand for partial or total repeal of the Prohibition Act at the next session of the Legislature. He also intimated the possibility of another plebiscite by stating that ". . . i t w i l l probably be necessary again to submit the question to the Electorate during the year 1920. At last the promised commission was set up and on January 12-19, 1920, with Mr. Justice Aulay Morrison as Commissioner, heard arguments on the question of compensation. The commission decided that the claims for compensation were more "ethical and moral than legal" and recommended non-payment. The Association of License-Holders appealed again to the Government asking for the re-submission of the case to the Commissioner with a new question: "Were the applicants not entitled in 'fairness and reason' to some compensation?" The Government refused the application on February 3 r d , and no compensation was granted. As was indicated in Oliver's memo to his cabinet, the Prohibition Act was the subject of legislation during the 1920 Session of the Legislature. Amendments were passed to restrict the issuance of prescriptions and thus plug one of the loopholes of the A c t . 2 6 9 In addition, Premier Oliver announced that i t was time for the electorate to decide whether i t wished to continue 80 prohibition. His "Temperance Act" plebiscite accordingly asked "Which do you prefer: (l) Maintenance of the present Prohibition Act or (2) An Act to provide for Governmental control and sale, in sealed packages, of spirituous and malt l i q u o r ? " 2 7 0 He justified the taking of this plebiscite on the grounds that the Prohibition Act had not been approved by the soldiers overseas or women and thus might not represent the opinions of a majority of the electorate; that effective enforcement had proven d i f f i c u l t ; and that there was wide-spread public dissatisfaction with the present Act. The alternative offered a solution, which i f continuation of prohibition was not approved, would provide a "temperate" system of liquor outlets without a return to the e v i l 271 saloon system of the pre-prohibition era. The week after the introduction of the "Temperance Act" a sixty-woman delegation, representing various women's societies, waited on the Premier with a request to include in the plebiscite a section on light wine and beer table l i c e n c e s . 2 7 2 The Legislature had received petitions on the same question on March 22 and April 7, 2 7^ and a delegation of "brewery interests" had petitioned Oliver on April 8 to add sale of beer and light wines under trade licence to the section on "sealed packages" and not as a third question. 2 7^ Oliver rejected these requests with the explanation that he wanted a plebiscite which would permit a clear expression of opinion leaving no doubt as to the subsequent verdict and the injection of "beer and light x^ines issue" might militate against such an expression. 81 The prohibitionists were unhappy about the plebiscite and wanted the Government to submit a different plebiscite, that i s , on the question of federal restriction of importation. Under Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act , 2 7 ^ i t was possible to hold a plebiscite requesting the Federal Government to enact legislation prohibiting the importation of liquor into the province. But only those provinces in which a prohibition act was in force could hold such a plebiscite. Accordingly, Mr. George^introduced a Resolution into the House requesting that a plebiscite worded "That the importation and the bringing of intoxicating liquor into the Province may be forbidden," be held in place of the "Temperance P l e b i s c i t e . " 2 7 ^ Oliver moved an Amendment to this Resolution to provide for the importation plebiscite to the effect that should the electorate approve the continuation of the present Prohibition Act, i t would be desirable to take a referendum under the provisions of Part IV of the Canada Temperance A c t . 2 7 7 There were other objections to the terms of the plebiscite. Bowser, the Leader of the Opposition, questioned the necessity of taking the plebiscite separate from a general election i n view of the extra expense thus involved.27® The prohibitionists complained that the electorate was asked to vote blindfolded, to make a choice between an act and an opinion, between a statute and an abstraction. They repeatedly asked for a definition of the terms, government sale and government control. The Liberal Government, they charged, was really not 82 being f a i r asking them to vote on a general b i l l without d e t a i l s , when i n 1915 the L i b e r a l P a r t y had made a formal d e c l a r a t i o n of i t s l i q u o r p o l i c y . 2 ^ 9 The Government d i d not act on these adverse c r i t i c i s m s and the Temperance P l e b i s c i t e Act passed without f u r t h e r amendments, as to the date of vote (October 20) and content. However, during the campaign, the Attorney-General, J. W. deB. P a r r i s , defended the Government's p o l i c y i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: Liquor l e g i s l a t i o n was a question x^hich was being keenly debated. I t was a moral question. The Government had two choices. I t could have decided one way or the other -- e i t h e r i n favor of a wet plank i n the p l a t f o r m , or o f adopting a p o l i c y i n favor of bone-dry l e g i s l a t i o n , and have gone to the country f o r support. This would have r e s u l t e d i n a r e t u r n to power of a government e l e c t e d on one p r i n c i p l e , and t h a t alone. P a r t i e s would have been s p l i t over the question and the government would not have been r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the people on other important issues which would come before the L e g i s l a t u r e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I t would be impossible to c a r r y on such an arrangement. . . . The government i s not trimming on t h i s question. I t i s asking f o r a s t r a i g h t o p i n i o n of the people on the f a c t s before them on t h i s moral issue. o Q„ Apart from t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n by P a r r i s , n e i t h e r o f the major p a r t i e s , the L i b e r a l and Conservative, was w i l l i n g t o make a statement on the p l e b i s c i t e , p r e f e r r i n g to t r e a t i t p u r e l y as a nonpartisan i s s u e . " I can't discuss P r o h i b i t i o n from a personal angle," explained Premier O l i v e r , "because i t would look as i f I spoke f o r the Government and the Government i s c h i e f l y anxious t o have the u n a s s i s t e d view of the people on the matter. " 2 8 l Only the leader of the S o c i a l i s t Party, Hawthornwaite, was u n w i l l i n g to make t h i s s a c r i f i c e and came 83 out u n e q u i v o c a l l y i n favor of r e p e a l i n g the P r o h i b i t i o n Act. The campaign f o r continuance o f the P r o h i b i t i o n Act moved i n t o h i g h gear w i t h a three day (October 1-3) convention pQ p of the People's P r o h i b i t i o n P arty. The keynote address was given, as i n 1915> by Archdeacon Ll o y d o f Saskatoon, who f i r s t took the Government to tas k f o r not e l a b o r a t i n g on the d e t a i l s of Government c o n t r o l and s a l e . The c l a i m that v o t i n g against p r o h i b i t i o n would r e s u l t i n "moderate" or temperate d r i n k i n g was s a r c a s t i c a l l y r e f u t e d . " I f you vote moderate you can imagine what a b e a u t i f u l province you w i l l have," he began and went on to draw a graphic word p i c t u r e o f hordes of drunkards and wastrels invading the province from the bone-dry U n i t e d States and the dry Canadian pr o v i n c e s . "Furthermore, . . . you are t o be asked to t u r n your Government i n t o bartenders so that breweries and d i s t i l l e r s s h a l l have reputable bartenders and d i s t r i b u t o r s . " Nor should the mess of pottage promised by government sale be an Inducement. "Do not l e t the Government throw dust i n your eyes, e i t h e r by the argument that the t r a f f i c i s f o r revenue purposes or any other. We t r i e d t h a t game i n Saskatchewan and twenty-three l i q u o r stores were e s t a b l i s h e d and these came to be known as Scott's l i q u o r shops, named a f t e r the the attorney-general who r e a l l y was doing h i s best. I f t h i s referendum f a i l s us you w i l l have i n B r i t i s h Columbia your O l i v e r shops or Bowser booseries. " 2 8 3 84 S i m i l a r warnings were d e l i v e r e d by various speakers at the Convention as to the meaning of the p l e b i s c i t e . "We are not concerned w i t h temperance but the s t a t e c o n t r o l and r e g u l a t e d sale of l i q u o r . Remember you are asked t o vote not f o r government c o n t r o l but government c o n t r o l and s a l e , a very d i f f e r e n t t h i n g . Government sa l e might pay o f f our n a t i o n a l debt i n a few years, but i t w i l l not be by moderation. Instead a "deluge of booze" s u p p l i e d by "government boozoriums" was promised. The u s u a l r i n g i n g slogans were coined and delegates were asked " S h a l l we get our revenue from booze?" and exhorted to "Let the motto of Verdun be ours, 'They ( l i q u o r i n t e r e s t s ) s h a l l not break through.'" As a f i n a l warning, the Convention was reminded that "Government l i q u o r c o n t r o l meant the l i q u o r c o n t r o l of Government."28k In a d d i t i o n to c r i t i c i z i n g the r e t u r n to a "booze" system, the Convention staunchly defended the P r o h i b i t i o n Act and made many claims f o r i t . In the f i r s t place the Act which the e l e c t o r a t e was to approve at the p l e b i s c i t e was not at f a u l t . "The t r o u b l e l i e s w i t h those entrusted w i t h the law's enforcement and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . " 2 8 5 Furthermore, the p r e s c r i p t i o n scandal was e l i m i n a t e d w i t h the amendments just passed and s t a t i s t i c s xtfere quoted to show that the number of p r e s c r i p t i o n s had been considerably reduced since the amendments came i n t o f o r c e . Since the o r i g i n a l Act had been i n f o r c e , four j a i l s had been c l o s e d , the p e n i t e n t i a r y was n e a r l y empty, the o l d saloon had gone and drunkenness reduced by 92 per cent. Despite l a x enforcement 85 and i l l e g a l t r a f f i c k i n g , the Act had g r e a t l y redxiced the t o t a l s a le of l i q u o r and c o n v i c t i o n s f o r drunkenness. The annual expenditure on l i q u o r had been lowered from eleven m i l l i o n d o l l a r s p r e - p r o h i b i t i o n , to two m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n 1919. During the "dry" years, the country had been u n u s u a l l y prosperous. Even the d e c l i n i n g death r a t e from t u b e r c u l o s i s x^as c r e d i t e d to the p r a c t i c e o f p r o h i b i t i o n . 2^ 7 j n e f f e c t , p r o h i b i t i o n had f u l f i l l e d many of the glowing promises of i t s supporters i n the three years of i t s enforcement and ought to be continued. As p o l l i n g day approached, the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s ' campaign gained momentum, both i n extent of a c t i v i t i e s and extravagance of claims. In the week p r i o r to the v o t i n g , one hundred p u b l i c meetings were h e l d ; 85,000 issues o f the P r o h i b i t i o n B u l l e t i n were d i s t r i b u t e d and extensive door to door canvassing c a r r i e d out. The e l e c t o r a t e was informed t h a t the r e a l i s s u e at stake was "the booze shop versus the home; the b o t t l e versus the boy. "289 w a s warned that p o l i t i c a l chaos was i n store as government c o n t r o l and sale would breed p o l i t i c a l c o r r u p t i o n and g r a f t and leave the Government at the mercy of the l i q u o r l o b b y i s t s . On a l i g h t e r note, i t was reminded t h a t "a government-produced drunk looks l i k e any other k i n d . " 2 9 0 The r e l i g i o u s appeal was not overlooked as voters were exhorted to obey the commandment "Thou s h a l t love thy neighbour as t h y s e l f " — " f o r the other man's sake vote f o r prohibition."291 l n a d i a t r i b e reminiscent of B i l l y Sunday, Rev. A. E. Cooke addressed a f i n a l harangue against government 86 c o n t r o l and s a l e : " I am going to l e t the cat out of the bag on the M o d e r a t i o n i s t s , or 'Wets' as they should p r o p e r l y be termed. They want to make t h i s province a system of boozoriums, b r i n g whiskey i n t o p o l i t i c s , u n i t e the government w i t h the d i s t i l l e r s and by s e l l i n g l i q u o r to make men drunk and then a r r e s t i n g them through the attorney-general's department, which w i l l also have charge o f the sale of l i q u o r , b r i n g damnformation and reformation side by side l i k e two heavenly twins at the beck and c a l l of the 'Wets.'" 2 9 2 The P r o h i b i t i o n i s t s t r i e d to get f u l l union support and members of the One B i g Union and some others helped campaign f o r the P r o h i b i t i o n Act. However, the Trades and Labor Council (Vancouver) f l a t l y r e f u s e d to advocate p r o h i b i t i o n , p r e f e r r i n g to take a n e u t r a l p o s i t i o n , l e a v i n g i t up to the i n d i v i d u a l members to vote as they saw f i t . 2 9 ^ ^he P r o h i b i t i o n i s t s d i d get extensive help from the p u l p i t as various A n g l i c a n , Roman C a t h o l i c , P r e s b y t e r i a n , Methodist, B a p t i s t and Congregational clergymen urged t h e i r congregations to vote f o r the continuance of the P r o h i b i t i o n A c t . 2 9 ^ The Moderation League, which c a r r i e d the banner f o r government c o n t r o l and sale was content to conduct a two-week wh i r l w i n d campaign. 2 9^ The League proclaimed i t s e l f i n favour of temperate or moderate l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n . I t d i d not d e s i r e a r e t u r n to the saloon system, but i t d i d x^ant enforceable l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n and a b o l i t i o n of the i l l i c i t o u t l e t s . I t advocated government c o n t r o l of o u t l e t s as a system most apt to promote a 87 temperate s o c i e t y , 2 9 ^ * P r o h i b i t i o n had f a i l e d i n that i t had not r e s u l t e d i n s o b r i e t y but had produced i n s t e a d , b l i n d - p i g s , bootleggers, rum-runners, and s t i l l e r s on an extensive s c a l e . The r e a l choice the e l e c t o r a t e had to make was " w i l l the bootlegger or the Government s e l l ? " 2 9 7 In a d d i t i o n , p r o h i b i t i o n had brought the medical p r o f e s s i o n i n t o disrepute through the p r e s c r i p t i o n s scandal. Even more harmful r e s u l t s had accrued. Deprived of l i q u o r , some had been d r i v e n to harmful s u b s t i t u t e s such as drugs and home b r e w 3 . 2 9 ® Temperance, the League main-t a i n e d , could not be promoted by law, but only by education. Meanwhile, the province had a P r o h i b i t i o n Act to maintain, which was both expensive and impossible t o enforce, yet was not producing the b e n e f i t s claimed f o r i t . 7 7 The Act had two other s t r i k e s against i t . I t was c l a s s l e g i s l a t i o n , as the poor had to p e r j u r e themselves to get a doctor's p r e s c r i p t i o n i n order to secure a d r i n k , w h i l e the r i c h could import by the carload.3 ° ° In i t s search x^ithout a warrant cla u s e , the Act destroyed the s a n c t i t y of the home, "to which every c i t i z e n as i n h e r i t o r of B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n s was e n t i t l e d . " 3 0 1 Extreme claims were not the trademark of the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s o n l y and some Mod e r a t i o n i s t s made r a t h e r immoderate statements about the forthcoming p l e b i s c i t e . The melodramatic warning issued by Mr. Thompson, p r e s i d i n g at a League meeting, was t y p i c a l of these: "The enactment of p r o h i b i t i o n w i l l make a soured and discontented people, a people r i p e f o r r e v o l u t i o n . Look at Ru s s i a . Thrones rocked and murder 88 f o l l o w e d when a ban was placed on vodka."302 other references were made t o the Russian r e v o l u t i o n as one Moder a t i o n i s t claimed that " S o v i e t s " and clergymen stood shoulder to shoulder w i t h bootleggers i n support of the P r o h i b i t i o n A c t . ^ 0 ^ As women were able to vote at a p r o v i n c i a l p l e b i s c i t e f o r the f i r s t time and would i n f a c t cast the deciding vote, each side was eager to o b t a i n t h e i r support. The P r o h i b i t i o n i s t s , who had long been l i n k e d w i t h the cause o f woman s u f f r a g e , were confident of t h e i r support. "we r e j o i c e t h a t i n t h i s p l e b i s c i t e the xtfomen of B r i t i s h Columbia e x e r c i s e f o r the f i r s t time t h e i r general r i g h t of equal f r a n c h i s e w i t h men. . . . We count on an overwhelming m a j o r i t y o f women's votes f o r p r o h i b i t i o n i n t h i s p l e b i s c i t e , but we urge every woman, as she values her newly-found power, to use i t f o r the great cause o f p r o h i b i t i o n . " 3 0 k Dr. George T e l f o r d p u b l i c l y voiced h i s o p i n i o n that n i n e t y per cent, of the women would support p r o h i b i t i o n . - ^ 0 ^ Mrs. J. W. deB. P a r r i s , under the Cou n c i l of Women's auspices, spoke at se v e r a l p u b l i c meetings, urg i n g women to support p r o h i b i t i o n i n order "to preserve the s a n c t i t y of the home" and as the best means o f ensuring the futu r e o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n . ^ 0 6 The Council o f Women, repres e n t i n g 65 women's s o c i e t i e s and the Nurses' Federation campaigned a c t i v e l y to r e t a i n the P r o h i b i t i o n Act. - ^ 7 No women's org a n i z a t i o n s came out i n support of government sale and c o n t r o l , but s e v e r a l women spoke at Moderation League meetings urg i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n of government c o n t r o l and s a l e . Their support was also evident e a r l i e r , when over eight thousand women p e t i t i o n e d 89 Premier O l i v e r f o r the r e p e a l of the P r o h i b i t i o n A c t . ^ 0 ^ On the eve of the e l e c t i o n both sides p r e d i c t e d , v i c t o r y . The campaign, noted f o r i t s l a c k of personal abuse, had aroused p u b l i c f e e l i n g s to the extent of f i l l i n g meetings, pro and con, to ov e r f l o w i n g . The expected l a r g e vote was duly recorded and by e l e c t i o n night i t was known t h a t government c o n t r o l and sa l e had won by a huge m a j o r i t y . The f i n a l count was 75,96k f o r "temperance" and k9,225 f o r the P r o h i b i t i o n Act?°C-As one newspaper e d i t o r i a l pointed out, the v e r d i c t was a v a l i d one. Such a l a r g e m a j o r i t y showed th a t the people were opposed i n p r i n c i p l e to p r o h i b i t i o n and not ju s t to feeble enforcement. The Government was t h e r e f o r e under d i r e c t o b l i g a t i o n t o obey the d e c i s i v e mandate i t s o u g h t . ^ 0 Premier O l i v e r expressed s u r p r i s e at the r e s u l t , c l a i m i n g that he had supported p r o h i b i t i o n and had expected that most of the e l e c t o r a t e would too, but as i t had not, ". . . i t w i l l be the duty of the Government to prepare and submit s u b s t i t u t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n at the e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e d a t e . " 3 H The Leader of the Opposition, Bowser, refused to express an o p i n i o n on the vote: " I am deaf and dumb as regards yesterday 1 s vote on p r o h i b i t i o n . " - ^ - 2 P r o h i b i t i o n ' s supporters, w h i l e stunned were not disheartened. The vote was t r e a t e d o n l y as a temporary setback. The e v i l s which would r e s u l t from government c o n t r o l and s a l e , a f t e r a b r i e f p e r i o d of experiment, would r e s u l t i n a p u b l i c clamour f o r the r e t u r n of p r o h i b i t i o n . Therefore, the People's P r o h i b i t i o n Party x^ould not disband, but continue i n readiness 90 to l e a d the p u b l i c back i n t o the p r o h i b i t i o n f o l d when they were d i s i l l u s i o n e d by the new system. The a c t u a l cause o f the defeat of p r o h i b i t i o n at the p o l l s was the "immaturity of g i r l v oters without s u f f i c i e n t age and experience to judge the problems o f l i f e and . . . apathy on the part of a great number of persons whose names were on the vo t e r s ' l i s t s but who d i d not exe r c i s e t h e i r franchise. " 3 1 3 Whatever t h e i r degree o f m a t u r i t y , women, who the newspapers claimed, " f l o c k e d to the p o l l s , " x^ere g e n e r a l l y acknowledged as having cast the dec i d i n g vote i n favour of government c o n t r o l and s a l e . They thus exploded the myth, long h e l d by temperance s o c i e t i e s , that women would vote "dry" when they got the f r a n c h i s e . Whatever the r e a c t i o n to the vote, the general vie\\r was h e l d t h a t the Government would o u t l i n e a government c o n t r o l and s a l e measure and then seek e l e c t o r a l approval at a general election.31^4- As the P r o h i b i t i o n Act had been so thoroughly repudiated at the p o l l s , i t was imperative to replace the d i s c r e d i t e d l e g i s l a t i o n w i t h new l i q u o r laws as soon as p o s s i b l e . The Government had three choices. I t could c a l l a s p e c i a l s e s s i o n of the L e g i s l a t u r e , d r a f t a new l i q u o r b i l l and then go to the e l e c t o r a t e f o r support; i t could pass new l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n and not seek e l e c t o r a l support u n t i l the f o l l o w i n g year; or i t could o u t l i n e a general p o l i c y on l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n and seek e l e c t o r a l support. The f i r s t and second choices were deemed p o l i t i c a l l y unwise i n a Sun e d i t o r i a l . I n the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , the issue d i d not j u s t i f y the expense of c a l l i n g a s p e c i a l s e s s i o n . Secondly, "no government faced w i t h the n e c e s s i t y of an e a r l y appeal to the people would wish to enact so c o n t r o v e r s i a l a measure as a l i q u o r c o n t r o l b i l l , and then seek e l e c t i o n immediately afterwards before the merits o f the measure had been proven. "315 rphe L i b e r a l Government decided upon the t h i r d choice, announcing that i t would appeal to the e l e c t o r a t e on the f i r s t of December, on the general p r i n c i p l e s of a l i q u o r b i l l . I t would not o u t l i n e the new Act i n d e t a i l as i t hoped "to secure the b e n e f i t s of p u b l i c o p i n i o n at the hustings before f i n a l d r a f t i n g of the measure. "316 T t i e Government chose to be vague about even the general p r i n c i p l e s of the b i l l and few e x p l i c i t statements were made. On the question o f l i q u o r c o n t r o l , so worrisome to the P r o h i b i t i o n i s t s , the L i b e r a l P arty announced i n a manifesto on November 3, t h a t ". . . to secure e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l of the l i q u o r t r a f f i c , i t w i l l be necessary to appeal to the Dominion Parliament f o r l e g i s l a t i o n under which the P r o v i n c i a l Government would have e f f e c t i v e a u t h o r i t y to c o n t r o l the sources of supply, to the extent necessary to prevent such sources of supply being made a base from which l i q u o r could be obtained i n contravention of the P r o v i n c i a l statute. " 3 1 7 Speaking at an e l e c t i o n r a l l y i n Esquimalt, Premier O l i v e r gave some i n d i c a t i o n s of what course the l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n would f o l l o w : " I consider the vote as one t h a t l i q u o r s h a l l be on s a l e i n reasonable q u a n t i t i e s at a reasonable p r i c e , and not be abused. I have no conscientious scruples about making a l l I can out of the business. But of 92 that revenue a p o r t i o n should go to the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ; the cost of e n f o r c i n g the law and keeping offenders i n gaol should be another charge; the sale of l i q u o r to those under twenty-one should be p r o h i b i t e d . " 3 1 8 Bowser, speaking f o r the Conservatives, strenuously attacked O l i v e r ' s handling of the l i q u o r question. "The Government," he charged, "must have known what the b i l l they would submit to the people i f moderation or p r o h i b i t i o n c a r r i e d would be, but i n s t e a d of t a k i n g the course of a man w i t h the courage of h i s c o n v i c t i o n s , Premier O l i v e r i s attempting to get through t h i s e l e c t i o n without l e t t i n g the people know just what the Government intends to do. I say Premier O l i v e r i s appealing to the e l e c t o r s f o r a vote of confidence i n h i s Government, and he has no r i g h t to go to the people and ask them to s i g n a blank check. "319 Though h i g h l y c r i t i c a l of the L i b e r a l s ' r e t i c e n c e on t h i s question, he s u f f e r e d from the same defect and committed the Conservatives, only to a "Moderation B i l l under which l i q u o r would be s o l d by the Government and the Government alone — w i t h a s t r i c t a u d i t , s t r i c t c o n t r o l , s t r i c t e n f o r c e m e n t . " 3 2 0 The only d e f i n i t e commitment was the promise by both p a r t i e s that there would be no r e t u r n of the saloons. The L i b e r a l s were returned w i t h a reduced majority, 3 2 1 and so were faced w i t h the immediate problem of d r a f t i n g l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n . The Government moved c a u t i o u s l y on the i s s u e . On February 1 1 , Premier O l i v e r moved a R e s o l u t i o n asking leave 93 o f the Lieutenant-Governor to place a Liquor Control Act before the House. This unusual method of i n t r o d u c i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , b i t t e r l y attacked by the Opposition, was j u s t i f i e d by O l i v e r as g i v i n g every member a chance to discuss the b i l l as i t r e a l l y was of nonpartisan nature. In d i s c u s s i n g the R e s o l u t i o n , O l i v e r described the h i s t o r y o f the P r o h i b i t i o n referendum, i t s subsequent enforcement and p u b l i c d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n l e a d i n g to the recent "Temperance P l e b i s c i t e . " The r e s u l t s o f the l a t t e r he d i d not i n t e r p r e t as "an i n s t r u c t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g the r e t u r n of the.bar or the d r i n k i n g saloon, but r a t h e r as an i n s t r u c t i o n t o make a v a i l a b l e , f o r use, s p i r i t u o u s and malt l i q u o r s i n reasonable q u a n t i t i e s , at a reasonable p r i c e and subject to reasonable r e s t r i c t i o n s . " 323 The Government Liquor Act was introduced and reviewed i n d e t a i l by the Attorney-General on February 23. The p r i n c i p a l clauses may be summed up as the f o l l o w i n g : There would be annual l i q u o r permits f o r both r e s i d e n t s and v i s i t o r s ; a one quart per purchase l i m i t ; drxinkenness to c o n s t i t u t e a punishable offence; no p u b l i c d r i n k i n g ; a $2 .£o/qt. t a x on imported l i q u o r ; no l i q u o r s o l d to those under twenty-one; ins p e c t o r s given the r i g h t of entry and search; and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to r e c e i v e h a l f of net p r o f i t s . 3 2 k The next day Premier O l i v e r explained the Government's new l i q u o r p o l i c y by s t a t i n g that "the whole i n t e n t of the Act i s to put the sale i n the hands of the Government so that people may o b t a i n l i q u o r under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s which w i l l prevent 94 i t s abuse and i l l i c i t t r a f f i c . The high taxes on wholesale houses are to help us overcome c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s about p r i v a t e i m p o r t a t i o n . The t a x of |2.f?0 a quart on imports i s made designedly heavy so as to be p r o h i b i t i v e o f importation. " 3 2 5 The B i l l d i d not have an easy passage through the House. Licensed s a l e of beer i n h o t e l s and r e s t a u r a n t s , d i n i n g rooms and In bars and clubs provided the most contentious i s s u e . Several r e s o l u t i o n s were r e c e i v e d by the Government p r o t e s t i n g l i c e n s e d s a l e of beer as the p l e b i s c i t e had been d e f i n i t e l y a n t i - b a r and anti-saloon.3 2 6 Veterans, on the other hand, protested against the ban of sale of beer i n t h e i r s e r v i c e 327 c l u b s . ' By 3k- "to 11, the House adopted an amendment to the e f f e c t that no one, other than a Government vendor, could s e l l malt liquors.3 2 8 i t r e j e c t e d another amendment to r a i s e the l i m i t f o r n o n - i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r s from one per cent, a l c o h o l by weight to two per cent. Thomas U p h i l l ' s amendment i n favour of a Beer clause met the same f a t e despite h i s p l e a that the ". . . B i l l made i t easy to get hard l i q u o r and d i f f i c u l t t o get good b e e r . " 3 2 9 A compromise of s o r t s was f i n a l l y reached between those who advocated "Booze as f r e e as water"330 a n ( j those who pro t e s t e d against any p u b l i c sale o f l i q u o r , s p i r i t u o u s or malt by i n s e r t i n g a clause p r o v i d i n g f o r a s p e c i a l permit f o r p u b l i c drinking.3 3 1 Other issues caused d i f f i c u l t y . Bowser pro t e s t e d against the f a i l u r e of the Government to provide f o r a non-p a r t i s a n Board of C o n t r o l ; he warned that the s p e c i a l permit 95 clause would r e s u l t I n widespread p u b l i c d r i n k i n g and noted that the $2.^0 t a x on imported l i q u o r f o r the express purpose of c u r t a i l i n g i m p o r t a t i o n , was u l t r a v i r e s of the L e g i s l a t u r e . 3 3 2 F i n a l l y a f t e r almost seven weeks of heated debate and many amendments, the B i l l , on a p a r t i s a n vote, despite O l i v e r ' s p l e a f o r a no-party measure, passed t h i r d reading and on A p r i l 2 r e c e i v e d Royal A s s e n t . 3 3 3 The members of the Liquor Control Board were appointed on A p r i l 13, and on June 15 the o l d P r o h i b i t i o n Act went out of o p e r a t i o n and the new experiment i n government c o n t r o l and s a l e took e f f e c t . 3 3 ^ " With the f a i l u r e of p r o h i b i t i o n , O l i v e r was faced w i t h the n e c e s s i t y of p r o v i d i n g a d i f f e r e n t type of l i q u o r d i s t r i b u t i o n . He decided to o f f e r an u n s p e c i f i e d system of government c o n t r o l and sale as an a l t e r n a t i v e to p r o h i b i t i o n , w i t h the e l e c t o r a t e choosing by a p l e b i s c i t o r y vote. A p l e b i s c i t e was used as the i s s u e was deemed a moral one which ought to be kept separate from p a r t y p o l i t i c s . The terms of the p l e b i s c i t e were not c l e a r as the Government f a i l e d to elaborate on what type of government c o n t r o l and s a l e was envisioned. As the Conservatives a l s o remained s i l e n t on the i s s u e , the two i n t e r e s t e d pressure groups, the Moderation League and the B. C. P r o h i b i t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n took i t upon themselves to e n l i g h t e n the p u b l i c as to what was at stake. The explanations of both x^rere at best o n l y guesses, and at worst were misl e a d i n g . As the e l e c t o r a t e was o f f e r e d an unknown a l t e r n a t i v e , the vote can o n l y be i n t e r p r e t e d as a r e j e c t i o n of 96 p r o h i b i t i o n . A f t e r the p l e b i s c i t e returns were known, O l i v e r decided to h o l d an e l e c t i o n before making any changes i n the l i q u o r laws. Despite h i s p r o t e s t s to the contrary, the l i q u o r question was one of the l e a d i n g issues of the ensuing p o l i t i c a l campaign. The p l e b i s c i t e t h e r e f o r e proved us e l e s s i n t h i s instance as a device f o r keeping the l i q u o r issue out of p o l i t i c s . BEER-BY-THE-GLASS PLEBISCITE, 192k Although there had been discussion on the sale of beer during the debates of the Government Liquor Act, 1921, the Legislature rejected amendments which would have provided for the sale of beer by the glass i n clubs, restaurants and h o t e l s . J J The Act provided that government liquor stores alone were able to s e l l bottled beer and glass sale was prohibited to them as well. It was immediately apparent that the prohibition against sale by the glass would be d i f f i c u l t i f not impossible to enforce. Veterans' clubs, which had advocated beer-selling licences, refused to comply with the new lav; and on July 23, 1921, announced that they would continue selling to bona fide members. The Attorney-General warned that the law would be enforced and conducted a series of raids on various clubs, resulting i n the arrest of several people. The arrests produced a series of court cases, i n the judgment of one of which the Supreme Court Justice Mr. Murphy decided that selling beer to members of a club did not constitute sale of beer within the meaning of the Act, but only a distribution of property amongst m e m b e r s . F o r t i f i e d by this decision, "beer" clubs soon made their appearance and the Moderation League conducted an extensive advertising campaign for 97 98 the right to s e l l beer by the glass. The prohibitionists viewed these activities and the direction to which they were leading with alarm and held a convention on October 2f>-26 to discuss the situation. The Secretary predicted the doom of the Liquor Act and a return to prohibition. The convention adopted a resolution to seek the repeal of the present Act; s t r i c t enforcement of a Prohibition Act; and the securing of dominion prohibition. No resolution as regards clubs and sale of beer therein was recorded. 337 During the second session of the Legislature, the Moderation League again urged the Government to make provision for the sale of beer by the glass i n regularly appointed places. Two weeks later, Ian Mackenzie moved that the House resolve i t -self into a Committee of the Whole "to consider the question of the sale of malt liquors under the Government Liquor Act, 1921." The motion carried on division by 23 to lLj.. In Committee, i t was resolved to hold a referendum on the question of sale of beer i n standard,-, hotels and i n bona fide clubs.338 Committee rose and reported the matter. However, a point of order was raised that the resolution was out of order as "infringing on the prerogative of the Crown," i n that i t touched public moneys and therefore required a Government measure." The Speaker ruled that the point was well-taken and the session ended a few days later without further discussion of the sale of beer. However, the Government Liquor Act, 1921, did not escape the remainder of the session without bitter attacks. In reply to a 99 series of criticisms by the Opposition, the Government introduced amendments to tighten up the Act, In December, acting on reports that ten hotel bars had opened i n Vancouver and were offering beer for sale to members at a ten cent fee, the Liquor Control Board conducted an investigation into the club situation. Twelve clubs lost their licences and.thirty others were r a i d e d . 3 3 9 This i n no way curbed the growth of the clubs whose numbers grew d a i l y . 3 ^ The club system was only one aspect of the i l l i c i t sale of liquor which existed i n the province. Rum-running over the United States-Canada border had developed on a grand scale, involving fleets of boats and trucks. Bootleggers, and s t i l l e r s , selling cheap and frequently bad or dangerous liquors, were s t i l l part of the scene despite the claims of the Moderation League that government control and sale of liquor would force them to r e t i r e . To curb bootlegging activities at one source, new regulations were enforced governing the sale of liquor by the warehouses.3^" A series of raids throughout the province put s t i l l other bootleggers out of business. In face of continued public demand for bootleggers' services, the two measures had no lasting effect i n curbing i l l i c i t sales. The whole liquor situation was discussed by the Legislature again during the 1922 Session when the f i r s t annual report of the Liquor Control Board was presented by the Attorney-General. A Conservative member urged that the licensed sale of light wines by the glass would eliminate the bootlegger. 3^" 2 100 However, the Attorney-General, contending that private importation produced i l l i c i t sales, moved a resolution asking the federal parliament "to enact legislation providing for the prohibition of intoxicating liquor into British Columbia for use therein except by the Provincial G o v e r n m e n t . " s a i e Q f beer by the glass was again revived when Ian HcKenzie tried to get a resolution passed asking for a referendum on the question.3^-The resolution was ruled out of order and another, resolving that " i t i s unadvisable at this Session of the Legislature to make provision for the sale of beer by the glass" was passed, thus putting off the problem for another year, but assuring that i t would have to be dealt with then. During the same year, the liquor situation was the subject of unfavourable comment by the prohibitionist element of the province. The B.C. Prohibition Association conducted public meetings condemning government liquor policy i n general and failure to curb rum-runners i n particular. The condemnations were repeated i n the Prohibition Bulletin which was again brought into publication. At the Provincial Methodist Conference held i n Vancouver on May 20, regret was expressed that under the government sales system there had been a great increase i n the sale of liquor and urged that the Government prohibit the use of advertisements encouraging i t s sale and use. 3 ^ The convention of the Prohibition Association took up cudgels against a beer and wine referendum and learned that i f such a proposal were made, the Association would meet the issue with a bone-dry prohibition demand. 101 I l l i c i t liquor sale through "clubs," bootleggers and rum-runners increased i n 1923 despite the enforcement of the previous year's liquor act amendments. The extensiveness of these sales prevented a satisfactory operation of the government sale and control system and failure to curb them resulted i n increasingly c r i t i c a l comment of the system i t s e l f . It was attacked i n the federal parliament, at meetings of the Dominion Alliance, by the various churches and during conventions of prohibition organizations, ^ The chief c r i t i c s of the system were members of the B.C. Prohibition Association and during a mass meeting of the organization i n Victoria, Rev. A, E. Cook, charged that B r i t i s h Columbia was fast becoming the "whiskey sinkhole of the Dominion." The only solution to the liquor problem was to repeal the government control act and replace i t with "bone-dry" prohibition legislation. A resolution to that effect was adopted. Another one on the club situation, declaring that the prevalence of beer i n clubs i n Vancouver made conditions worse than they had been when "the bars were i n f u l l swing" was passed and action by the Government to end the situation was urged. Again pleas were renewed that the i l l i c i t sales of liquor could be greatly reduced by providing for sale of beer by the glass. Speaking i n the House, during the throne speech debates, Burde urged that the prevalence of bootleggers and beer clubs made liquor law amendments urgently necessary. As these i l l e g a l sources existed due to the demands for their 102 services, the Government ought to take cognizance of this demand by expanding the number and type of liquor o u t l e t s . ^ 9 The Moderation League met the Premier and other members of the Cabinet and repeated i t s request for sale of beer by the glass throughout Br i t i s h Columbia or a referendum on the question. Such a request had been rejected i n former years for the reason that there had not been sufficient t r i a l of the system. However, the system had been i n operation for three years and i l l i c i t sales were on the 3^0 increase. Some change was absolutely imperative.--^ Concurrently the liquor situation was hotly debated at a conference between the Government and the parliamentary committee of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, with each party blaming the other for the flaws i n the liquor system. The Union ini t i a t e d the conference by sending a delegation to the Premier to protest strongly against "the present disgraceful situation throughout the province i n regard to the formation of clubs and the sale of liquor therein, that the present situation i s worse than i n the days of the open bar, and that the Government be urged to enact laws to alter this deplorable state of a f f a i r s . " - ^ 1 The Attorney-General countered that the failure of the government control system to curb the i l l i c i t sales was the fault of the municipalities, whose police forces had rendered almost no assistance i n the matter of law enforcement, especially i n regard to handling liquor i n clubs. In fact, had i t not been for the clubs, the record under the Liquor Control Act would have been a "very clear one."352 The municipalities b i t t e r l y resented the 103 Attorney-General's claims and the -unseemly controversy over them continued after the conference ended. I l l - f e e l i n g was not the only product of the conference. The Government decided i t could no longer delay action on the beer question, which was the crux of the "clubs" problem. Therefore, on December 15, a "Sale of Beer Plebiscite" B i l l was 35k introduced. ^ The b i l l provided for a plebiscitory vote on beer by the glass i n licensed premises; 20 per cent, of the total vote before municipalities which registered a favourable vote could have such sale; and the granting of licences to clubs for sale to-members only. In introducing the b i l l , the Attorney-General contended that i t was necessary because the municipalities were not enforcing the laws and people were drinking more hard liquor than was good for them. There was to be no return to the bar system, he promised, the policy being to license only dining rooms of hotels. Nor would there be any return of the cabaret and dance h a l l system that prevailed under the prohibition near-beer law. The proposed b i l l provoked acrimonious debates and the bitter feelings aroused made i t d i f f i c u l t to get agreement on any points. The b i l l was as sharply c r i t i c i z e d by the Liberals as by the Conservatives, thus allowing no unity i n the House on liquor policy. M. B. Jackson (Liberal) could "not support the b i l l " as he f e l t i t would result eventually i n the return of the bar.-^ David Whiteside (Liberal) f l a t l y rejected the b i l l as "It i s lOlj. simply going back to the old bar days with a l l the worst 357 features... . ." R. H. Pooley (Conservative) charged that the Government was sidestepping Its responsibility through a proposed plebiscite and sharply attacked the local option feature of the b i l l for injecting the liquor issue into the realm of municipal p o l i t i c s . Such a provision would make the problem ten times vrorse. The Leader of the Opposition, Bowser, urged that the plebiscite be taken at the same time as a provincial general election; that the hours of sale be fixed beforehand and that the House decide the number of license to be issued. Thomas Uphill (Labor) asserted that a plebiscite was not necessary and the Government was justif i e d i n inserting a beer clause into the Liquor Act. 3^ 8 The question of local option was especially trying. In i t s original form the b i l l possessed a clause whereby i f 2/5 of the total votes cast on the plebiscite were i n the affirmative, the sale of beer by the glass would be allowed i n those municipalities which cast a favourable vote. Both Liberals and Conservatives cried out against minority legislation and this clause was amended out. Some members urged that the plebiscite ought to be on a local option basis so that those municipalities which gave the plebiscite a favourable majority could have beer sales regardless of the total vote'. Finally a local option clause passed on division by 23/18, over Bowser's strong protests, as he maintained i t had never worked satisfactorily. ^ 105 The Government received protests against the terms of the b i l l from sources outside the Legislature. Various women's organizations sent a delegation to the Premier asking that the plebiscite include a section on the sale of light wines. The terms were also unacceptable to the B.C. Prohibition Association which registered i t s protest to the Government, claiming that the plebiscite so constituted really advocated a return to the bar. It should offer prohibition as an alternative choice. Both these proposals met with rejection. Five days after i t was introduced the plebiscite b i l l received third reading. The lack of agreement was barely over-come and this reluctance was reflected i n the vague phrasing of the b i l l . The date of the plebiscite was not decided nor was the term "licensed premises" defined. The local option clause was equally obscure. It provided that should any d i s t r i c t decide for beer the Government, through the Liquor Control Board "may" provide for the sale of beer by the glass i n licensed premises. 3 6 2 In fact the liquor issue "was l e f t i n such a clouded condition that not even a l l of the members of the House were clear as to what was intended."3^3 Newspaper reaction to the plebiscite varied according to p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n . The Daily Province (Vancouver), a Liberal paper, favoured the plebiscite as being necessary as a means of providing a workable liquor system. 3^ The Sun (Vancouver), a Conservative newspaper, noted that the act was 106 received without enthusiasm and credited the Government with an ulterior motive for the plebiscite. The Government, i t maintained, really wanted to stage a surprise election and as revision of the voters' l i s t s necessary for this would give the date away, the plebiscite provided a smokescreen for the 365 revision. ^ The Daily Colonist (Victoria), was equally unenthusiastic about the plebiscite and had urged the Legislature to reject i t , claiming that there had been no general demand 366 for i t . - 5 When the date of the plebiscite was being discussed, Attorney-General Hanson rejected the proposal by Bowser that the plebiscite be taken at a general provincial election to save money, on the ground that such an election might not be held u n t i l 1926 and as the question was v i t a l , delay would be unwise. Furthermore, he did not wish to have the electoral candidates at the mercy of the liquor interests and other pressure groups as they had been at the 1916 liquor referendum.3^ By May of 192i}., he reversed his opinions and announced that a plebiscite would be taken on the same time as the provincial general election (June 20) saying, "It i s a matter of regret to me that the record of the Government and the beer question must be judged on the same day, but the general feeling on the part of the public i n favor of economy decided us to hold the election and the plebiscite at the same time."3^® 107 A week after the announcement of the plebiscite Attorney-General Manson explained i t s terms. The Government had "purposely l e f t the matter (sale of beer by the glass) to regulation by order-in-council, so as to retain better control during the i n i t i a l year and allow more el a s t i c i t y and simplicity i n alteration to meet circumstances" as they a r o s e . 3 6 9 In accordance with this policy, i t was understood, though not mentioned i n the terms of the act, that the plebiscite was actually a question of local option, that i s , provision for sale would be available only i n those municipalities or d i s t r i c t s i n which a majority voted i n favour of the plebiscite. Though also not mentioned i t was possible that means would be provided for the sale of beer i n approved dining-rooms during meal hours. At the same time, he emphasized that the "bar" under any 370 circumstances would not be tolerated. The announcement of the plebiscite met with a hostile reception from the B.C. Prohibition Association, which pledged i t s e l f to "organize the temperance forces to defeat the proposal" which was really a preliminary step to the rehabilitation of the bar. The Association opposed the plebiscite on other grounds as well. Claiming that there was no demand from the people to justify the plebiscite, i t charged that i t was "largely a gratuitous move on the part of the government to increase the sale of liquor that profits may be much greater." 3^ 1 1 0 8 372 The prohibitionists centred their anti-plebiscite campaign on the charge that i t meant the return of the bar, but also advanced many other charges, moral, social and economic, against the plebiscite. As the Government refused to operate the licensed premises, the element of private gain would again be injected into the liquor question and result i n inducements to encourage drinking. I t would thus n u l l i f y the "moderation" legislation of 1921, which was supposed to curb excessive drinking by substituting public sale for private and thus eliminated the profit motive. Also i f beer were sold privately i t would introduce a system of patronage, with the Government involved i n unsavoury dealings with those who wanted a liquor licence. Furthermore, no additional outlets were required as there was a huge amount (twenty million dollars annually) spent on liquor in the province. Only the Brewers1 Association and liquor interests wanted this change. Sale of liquor was then paralyzing "legitimate trade" by absorbing so much money and an increase In outlets would further depress this trade and cause unemployment.373 proposed licensed premises or "guest rooms" with tables instead of bars, would be worse than the latter "for i t s semblance of respectability w i l l entice women patrons." No decrease i n hard liquor sales could be expected from the open sale of malt liquors as the Quebec experiment bore testimony. 37 it In fact, beer drinking creates an appetite for hard liquors. ^ The question of control was also essential and as the Government admitted i n a b i l i t y to control present sales, an increase i n outlets would produce utter chaos. 109 As i n earlier plebiscites, the Moderation League defended the beer plebiscite against the claims of the prohibitionists. The League denied the "no public demand" charge, claiming instead, that demand was amply shown by the widespread existence of i l l e g a l beer clubs. Since so many people favoured sale of beer by the glass i t was better to have •37 c; regulated sale. Beer sale would curb hard liquor drinking and encourage the consumption of malt liquors which were "healthful and nutritious," because of their high food values. Besides, as beer drinkers were not drunkards, a vote for the plebiscite "was a vote for increased temperance and sobriety."3'''6 The prohibition charges of disastrous economic effects of beer sales were met with ingenious reasoning. Reducing expenditure on imported hard liquor i n favour of "light wholesome cheaper beer made by B ,G. workers from materials produced on B.G. farms" would lessen the amount of money directed into the import liquor trade, while anticipated expansion of l o c a l breweries would provide employment opportunities. The League's f i n a l appeal for a quietly conducted campaign repeated i t s central idea "Keep 377 them temperate by voting for the beer by the glass plebiscite." Premier Oliver, personally a prohibitionist, wanted the issue to be kept out of the p o l i t i c a l campaign. "The beer question," he said, speaking at an election r a l l y at Kamloops, "i s for the people to decide. With my permission no member of 0*7 A the Government w i l l take any side on this issue." Dr. M. Raynor, Liberal candidate for Victoria, did not share the 110 Premier's views and campaigned against the plebiscite because of the effect open sale would have on the youth. "If we allow the open sale of beer, our g i r l s and boys w i l l learn the taste of i t and want i t . We should fight this move and see i t does 379 not succeed i n B.C." The Conservative Party remained silent on the plebiscite as did the recently formed Provincial Party, which was contesting an election for the f i r s t time. However, the Provincial Party confused the issue by accusing the Government of corrupt dealings i n raising the wholesale price of beer to the brewers. In May, I92I4., the price was raised from $16.50 to | l 8 . 0 0/barrel, retro-active for three months, by excutive action. The Provincial Party charged that the advance was made for the purpose of obtaining money from the brewers to support the Liberals' campaign. The Premier issued angry denials and claimed that he had gotten them to accept a lower price than they were asking and that the price increase would not be passed on to the consumer. Despite Oliver's protests to the contrary, the beer price rise was connected with the plebiscite and became an election issue with the Liberals appearing as the beer party. Though public interest i n the liquor plebiscite was high, the appearance of a new p o l i t i c a l party commanded greater attention. The Provincial Party, an outgrowth of the p o l i t i c a l committee of the United Farmers of B.C., was formed i n January, 1923, and charging the two older parties with corruption i n connection with the building and operating of the Pacific Great I l l E a stern r a i l w a y , made c o r r u p t i o n i n Government the main i s s u e of the 192k p o l i t i c a l c ampaign. 3 8 3 On e l e c t i o n day, a negative m a j o r i t y i n the aggregate and i n the h e a v i l y populated m u n i c i p a l i t i e s was r e g i s t e r e d against the p l e b i s c i t e . The e l e c t o r a t e was not yet ready to approve of beer-by-the-glass o u t l e t s . I n a t e s t y e d i t o r i a l the D a i l y Province asserted that "the people have d e c i s i v e l y s a i d that they do not want any system of beer bar s , operated f o r p r i v a t e p r o f i t and capable of being i n v o l v e d i n t r a f f i c k i n g under p o l i t i c a l b o s s e s . " 3 8 ^ Despite the p l e b i s c i t o r y r e j e c t i o n o f s a l e of beer-by-t h e - g l a s s , the Government introduced l e g i s l a t i o n to provide f o r i t during the 192k s e s s i o n f o r the L e g i s l a t u r e . By i t the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council was empowered to h o l d l o c a l o p t i o n p l e b i s c i t e s i n a p o l l i n g d i v i s i o n , a group of p o l l i n g d i v i s i o n s or an e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t . A f i f t y - f i v e per cent, vote e n t i t l e d the area concerned to s a l e by the glass i n l i c e n s e d premises. Clubs were also permitted to s e l l to members, but s a l e i n r e s t a u r a n t s , s a l e of s p i r i t u o u s l i q u o r s , use of bars and a d v e r t i s i n g these l i c e n s e d premises were ex p r e s s l y forbidden. U n r e l e n t i n g pressure from various sources, i n c l u d i n g veterans' and s e r v i c e clubs and the Moderation League, plus the widespread existence of i l l e g a l beer ciuos had convinced the Government that i t must take some a c t i o n on the question o f s a l e o f beer by the g l a s s . Yet at the same time p r o h i b i t i o n 112 associations had unmistakenly voiced their opposition to provision for such sale. The Liberal Party i t s e l f , as revealed i n the legislative debates was divided on the liquor question. An election was also i n the offing. The Government therefore attempted to appease both "wets" and "drys" and avoid a s p l i t i n party ranks by holding a beer-by-the-glass plebiscite. The electorate was offered an unspecified system of glass sale; with the Government refusing to explain what the system involved. At f i r s t i t was announced that the plebiscite would be held separate from a general election to keep the issue free from party p o l i t i c s . Then i n the interest of economy, the Government reversed i t s decision and held the plebiscite with the general election. Though neither the Liberal nor the Conservative Party defined a policy as regards the plebiscite, i t became an issue of party p o l i t i c s with individual members campaigning either for or against i t . Though the proposal was rejected, the Government brought i n a liquor b i l l providing for sale of beer-by-the-glass at the f i r s t session of the Legislature after the plebiscite vote was taken. It i s d i f f i c u l t to reconcile this action with the Government's contention that the issue was moral and had to be decided by the electorate. In view of this measure, i t i s hard to avoid the conclusion that the plebiscite was motivated by p o l i t i c a l expediency. The plebiscite enabled the Government to avoid announcing a policy on an embarrassing issue with an election i n the offing. Then after the election, as the plebiscite 113 was only advisory i t cynically pursued the policy i t preferred though such a course repudiated the plebiscitory verdict. THE PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE PLEBISCITE, 1937 In their campaign for women's suffrage, advocates claimed that enfranchisement of women would usher i n a long l i s t of badly needed social welfare legislation. The years immediately following the granting of the vote to women saw the fulfillment of this claim with the passage of Acts providing for mothers' pensions, schools for subnormal boys, maintenance of deserted wives, land for soldiers, better housing, minimum wages for women, juvenile courts and adoption of children. With this strong emphasis on social welfare, i t i s not surprising that the question of state health insurance was raised i n the Legislature i n 1919• The scheme was not unique as sickness insurance had been i n effect i n Germany since 1883, and i n Great Britain since 1911, and some form of state hospital or medical 386 insurance was then i n effect i n twenty-five countries. The Legislature though not ready to deal with state health insurance, resolved that early consideration of i t by the Government was desirable. Following this resolution, Premier Oliver appointed a committee of four members of the Legislature 3 8 8 ^ Q inquire into the subject of health insurance and maternity benefits. Two years later the committee reported that some state insurance scheme was I l k 115 389 both necessary for, and i n demand by, the public. When the throne speech of 1922 contained no reference to such a scheme, a Socialist member moved that the Legislature resolve i t s e l f into a Committee of the Whole to discuss the advisability of appointing a committee to bring i n a state health insurance b i l l at that s e s s i o n . 3 9 0 The motion was amended out and replaced by one of Premier Oliver's, which declared that health insurance was xtfithin the competence of the Federal Parliament and urged early consideration of the question by that Legislature. The issue disappeared from the p o l i t i c a l scene u n t i l 1926, when the Conservative Convention, held that year, wrote the "investigation of state insurance with a view to i t s introduction" and "endorsation of the principle of mothers' benefits" into i t s programme.392 The Liberal Party followed suit by including both these subjects i n the platform adopted 393 by their Convention six months later. ^ Two days after this Convention, a resolution was unanimously carried i n the House, calling for the appointment of a committee of five members to inquire into the workings of systems of health insurance and maternity benefits "wherever such systems could be found i n effective operation." 3 9^" The resolution was not acted upon, however, as the Legislature was dissolved shortly after and a 395 general election held on July 18. In the campaign that followed both the Liberals and the Conservatives offered to consider some scheme of health insurance, but the issue was overshadowed by the Pacific Great 116 Eastern Railway question. The electorate returned a Conservative 396 Government, which, early i n the new session supported a Liberal resolution calling for the appointment of a select committee of the Legislature, under the "Public Inquiries Act," to report upon 397 systems of health insurance and maternity benefits. The motion carried unanimously and on April 16, 1929, a "Royal Commission on State Health Insurance and Maternity Benefits" was appointed.39® The Commission presented a Progress Report to the 399 Legislature i n February 1930, which stated that: state health insurance had been successful where tried, i t was necessary, and there was a general demand for i t ; but raised questions as to Its f e a s i b i l i t y on a provincial l e v e l , as systems examined had been on a national basis, and as to i t s constitutionality since there were no precedents i n the other Canadian provinces.^" 0 0 The Commission continued i t s investigations, hearing evidence from 292 individual witnesses and from representatives of the following bodies: "Local sickness insurance associations, hospitals, medical profession, nursing profession, dental profession, health centres, pharmacists, the Canadian Legion, fraternal societies, trade-unions, farmers' institutes, women's institutes and unions, departmental stores, wholesale houses, industrial concerns, lumber industry, boards of trade, municipalities, railways, l i f e insurance companies, Christian Scientists, drugless healers, chiropracters, anti-vaccinationists, an t i - v i v i s e c t i o n i s t s . " ^ 0 1 Their evidence disclosed an 117 "overwhelming desire on the part of the public generally for the introduction of both state health insurance and maternity benefits" and "the undeniable and acute necessity for such a scheme." In fact, there was "no evidence of any weight presented against the principle of compulsory health insurance, aside from those who object to any kind of medical treatment."^ 0 2 Accordingly, the Commission recommended the early establishment of a state health insurance and maternity benefits scheme with f i r s t provision for general medical and surgical treatment, including the necessary pharmaceutical supplies and surgical appliances, hospitalization and maternity benefit. The system was to apply compulsorily to a l l employed persons between 16 and 70 whose income did not exceed i>2,k00 per year, while provision was to be made for any persons outside this group who chose to join the scheme voluntarily. The system was to be financed by contributions from employee, employer and the Government. These recommendations were included i n the Pinal Report which was k03 presented to the Legislature i n January 1932. The Commission's recommendations were not acted upon by the Government as i t was at that time anxious to avoid new expenditures and was reducing the budgets of a l l departments i n order to meet i t s obligations. The world-wide depression with the resultant high unemployment l e f t the provincial and municipal Governments with heavy r e l i e f expenditures and a declining revenue to meet them. The costly r e l i e f burden, complicated by the number of transient indigents i n the Vancouver area, increased despite public works programmes and by 1933, the credit of the province 118 and the municipalities was exhausted and "necessary loans had to he made from the Dominion."^°^ As a result both 1932 and 1933 passed without legislative action on the public health insurance question. It was not an auspicious time for a general election. Premier Tolmle, claiming that a Union or non-Partisan Government would be better able to cope with the depressed economy, appealed to the Liberal Party and the Independent (Non-Partisan) Party to form a Union Government and then seek electoral s u p p o r t . B o t h parties rejected the offer. Despite their rejection, Tolmie decided to run as a Unionist, but the Executive of the Conservative Association of B.C. l e f t i t up to the Conservative Associations i n each electoral d i s t r i c t as to whether they would run a Conservative or a Unionist candidate. The disturbed economy was reflected i n the appearance of eleven p o l i t i c a l parties, with 219 candidates contesting the forty-seven s e a t s . T o l m i e issued his own Unionist Manifesto i n which he offered to support state health insurance on a federal basis. The Liberals, Conservatives and the newly formed Co-operative Commonwealth Federation offered some system of state health insurance on a provincial basis. In the event Tolmie was personally defeated and only one Unionist candidate was successful at the polls. Not a single Conservative retained his seat as the Liberals were returned with a majority of thirty-four seats. The seven new C.C.F. members formed the Opposition. 1 4- 0 8 119 Though the unemployment and r e l i e f problems absorbed most of the energies of the new L i b e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i t d i d not f o r g e t i'ts e l e c t o r a l promise to l e g i s l a t e on s t a t e h e a l t h insurance and by 1935, under the guidance of Dr. G. M. W e i r , ^ 0 9 had drawn up a d r a f t b i l l on the s u b j e c t . Though the d r a f t b i l l was d i s t r i b u t e d to the L e g i s l a t u r e that year, the Government d i d not propose any a c t i o n on i t at that s e s s i o n , p r e f e r r i n g to c i r c u l a t e the b i l l and h o l d p u b l i c hearings on i t so t h a t i n t e r e s t e d groups could present t h e i r c r i t i c i s m s and suggestions; the d r a f t b i l l to be a l t e r e d a c c o r d i n g l y A 1 0 The purpose of the d r a f t b i l l was "to provide f o r wage-earners, f o r farmers, f o r other persons of low income, f o r i n d i g e n t s and f o r the dependants of such persons, so many of a l l groups as can r e a d i l y be brought under the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s Act, the advantages of adequate medical s e r v i c e , both c u r a t i v e and p r e v e n t a t i v e , and of cash b e n e f i t s to r e p l a c e wages l o s t owing to absence of the wage-earner from work on account of s i c k n e s s ; and so to p r o t e c t and to improve the h e a l t h and w e l l - b e i n g of the mass of the population!'^- 1 1 The compulsory p l a n , considered f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e , was to be financed by employees, employers and the Government. The l e v y on employees was not to be more than three per cent, o f t h e i r wages and employers not more than two per cent, of the p a y r o l l of the i n s u r e d employees. The Government's c o n t r i b u t i o n would not be an a d d i t i o n a l charge on p u b l i c funds,as the amount spent on s u b s i d i e s to h o s p i t a l s would no longer be necessary and would be t r a n s f e r r e d to the h e a l t h insurance fund. The fund would not go i n t o debt as b e n e f i t s would o n l y be granted as the fund permitted. The p l a n would be 120 limited to those with an income of $2,lj.00 per year or less, but others could join i f they assumed f u l l cost of premiums. The Government would assume f u l l cost of premiums for indigents and pay one-half the cost of administration of the plan. In addition to medical and hospital services, the plan provided for payment of a cash benefit not to exceed $10 per week :up to twenty-six weeks to the beneficiary receiving treatment, laboratory services, limited dental service and limited nursing service. A Commission of f i v e 4 ^ was to administer the Act, and the Commission was to have broad powers to make whatever regulations were required for the efficient carrying out of the intention of the Act. There were also to be advisory councils to represent the views of the benefitted and a special medical committee of three members to be nominated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, without whose advice and views the Commission could not deal with the matters affecting medical practitioners or medical benefits. 4^ 3 In July, 1935>» a Committee chaired by Allan Peebles was appointed to lay the draft b i l l before interested persons and groups, analyse their representations and make recommendations for amendments to the plan.4^"4^ While a l l approving the principle of compulsory state health insurance, opposition to parts or a l l of the plan which embodied i t was apparent i n many of the representations made. The B.C. Division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association^ 1^ objected to the financing of the scheme, claiming that i t was an additional tax and would over-burden employees and employers alike. In the present economic 121 situation, they f e l t that the federal Government should finance the plan on a national basis. The Trades and Labour Congresses of Vancouver, and New Westminster and District wanted the plan altered to include a l l over twenty-one and unlimited free nursing (home) care.^" 6 Various women's associations wished to have a woman on the' Commission.^1''' The Christian Science's Committee opposed the plan only to the extent that i t might interfere with their f a i t h and their pockets and urged an amendment to exclude persons on the ground of religious belief. The Chiropractic Association of B..C. objected to the plan because i t did not recognize them and thus l e f t the medical men with a monopoly of medical p r a c t i c e . ^ 1 8 More serious for the success of the plan was the attitude of the B.C. Medical Association which announced that i t was "unanimously and unalterably opposed" to the scheme and that while seventy-five per cent, of the doctors "supported the principle of health insurance on a sound basis, the present b i l l was unworkable and u n f a i r . " ^ 9 The Committee considered these objections, suggested amendments to the draft b i l l accordingly and the health insurance plan which was submitted by the Government to the Legislature i n 193° largely incorporated i t s recommendations."^*20 These objections presaged a d i f f i c u l t passage for the "health insurance"bill through the legislature. Introduced on March 18, the b i l l did not reach Third Reading u n t i l March 3 1 , with the Government sustaining a number of reverses i n votes at the Second Reading and Report stages. Even the Liberal members 122 were divided i n their attitude, with five of their number voting it 21 against the b i l l at Second Reading and seven at Third Reading.^ The new plan was on a more modest scale than the original and was to include: The coverage of a l l employees earning less than | l , 8 0 0 per year; the employee to contribute two per cent, of his wages and the employer one per cent, of his payroll; mandatory benefits to include medical care by the physicians or surgeons chosen by the insured, hospital care, laboratory services, medicines and a cash maternity benefit of $20; the Commission was authorised to pay doctors on a salary basis, on a per capita basis or on a fee method.^-22 The modified plan would cover about 12^,000 employees and their families, some 300,000 persons i n a l l , at a cost of about forty cents per week to the wage earner.^ 2 3 The Act was to come into force upon proclamation by the Lieutenant-Governor . Considerable opposition to the new plan was voiced even before i t was submitted to the Legislature. The Health Insurance Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. protested that i t did not resemble the original plan, and urged delay with the new measure and further actuarial investigation. Protests were also voiced by a delegation representing agricultural, business and industrial interests, who urged that the plan should be delayed on the ground that the cost of the plan would handicap these interests.^ 2^- Their protests f a i l e d and the Act was proclaimed on May 18 , 193& and the f i r s t of the Commission-ers was appointed on May 22.1+25 123 The Health Insurance Commission spent the remainder of the year securing the registration of persons subject to contributions and entitled to benefits and other matters related to getting the scheme ready for operation. Meanwhile, opposition to the Act continued. There were protests because indigents were not included i n i t s scope. Numerous municipalities claimed they xirere not i n a position to erect the hospitals called for i n the Act. The medical profession continued i t s implacable opposition to the plan. In view of these conditions, the Government postponed enforcing the Act, which was to have begun operation early i n 1937. ^ 6 The Commission and the medical profession were s t i l l deadlocked over negotiations to bring the plan into operation when Premier Pattullo announced his decision to seek a new electoral mandate and, i n addition, to hold a plebiscite on the question of public health insurance."-^ In announcing the plebiscite, Pattullo frankly admitted that "the Government was unable to cope with the wave of protest that greeted i t s health insurance b i l l " and so was "returning to the electorate for an expression on the issue."" + 2 8 He expanded on the need for a plebiscite i n a manifesto printed i n the leading newspapers: "Before effect could be given to the provisions of the B i l l , the measure met with violent opposition." But, he continued, "Sumptuary laws are d i f f i c u l t of enforcement unless preponderantly supported by public opinion." Therefore, "in the light of circumstances, the Government has thought i t wise to test public opinion upon the question before providing further, and for this 12k reason i s submitting the question to the electors for an „k29 expression of opinion." Every effort was made by the Liberal administration to explain the terms of the plebiscite, which asked "Are you i n favour of a comprehensive health insurance plan progressively applied?""^ 3 0 In two radio broadcasts, originating from Vancouver, Dr. G. M. Weir, stated "I should l i k e to make i t emphatically clear that in the plebiscite you are not being asked to vote upon the present Act, but rather upon the principle of health insurance being progressively applied to our whole population...This means a broad type of measure broad or comprehensive i n the scope of i t s benefits and progressively applied to embrace more and more people in the Province." k 3 1 It was a mandate for the. insured, that i s , those contributing to the scheme, not the indigent, who "would be viewed entirely apart from the insured." An affirmative vote would be interpreted by the Government as a mandate for a limited system of health insurance, to be progressively applied to include "new groups of insured persons and to increase the benefits obtainable." k 3 2 A l l the p o l i t i c a l parties were i n favour of some scheme of state health insurance, but individual candidates objected to the terms of the plebiscite or attacked i t s use. The Conservative candidate for South Okanagan disliked the use of a plebiscite on the issue because i t could have "no binding effect on the Government whatever the result," nor would the vote solve the present "impasse brought about by the refusal of B.C. physicians 125 Ji 33 to operate under the Act as i t exists." The Conservative Party Leader, Dr. F. Patterson, complained that "the present plebiscite i s a negation of responsible government a sham and a camouflage to save the face of the government seeking desperately to escape responsibility for an Impracticable and „k3k ill-considered scheme." Editorial support for Dr. Patterson's views was expressed by the Daily Province, which elaborated that the Government "should have worked out a scheme and asked for am mandate, as i t was the government's job to supply leadership and k2>5 have policies and accept responsibility for them." Dr. Weir, who spearheaded the support for the plebiscite, pointed out that this criticism was not valid because a l l parties agreed on the principle of health insurance and so a vote for one or another would not show how the electorate f e l t . A plebiscite was absolutely necessary to gauge their attitude. Nor was the Liberal Government trying to evade responsibility for the issue as t e s t i f i e d by i t s "Health Insurance Act" and i t s present endorsement, of a health insurance measure. Furthermore, i t was the announced intention of the Government to treat a favourable i.36 vote as a mandate for a limited health insurance plan. According to the newspapers of the time, the campaign for the plebiscite was conducted quietly, with support of and opposition to i t being conducted by the p o l i t i c a l parties. The pressure groups who had so vociferously opposed the Health Insurance Act were probably active i n rallying public opinion to return a negative vote, but they did not u t i l i z e the newspapers for their purpose. 126 k31 By a majority of kk,198 votes, the plebiscite was approved and the Liberal Government was returned, though with i.38 a reduced majority, to deal with the health insurance question. Despite i t s electoral promises and the approved plebiscite, the Government chose a policy of waiting on the public health insurance question, neither enforcing the 1936 Act nor replacing i t with another. The Government defended i t s lack of action on the issue by explaining that i t was awaiting the report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, which had just been appointed and would probably have some recommendations to make on the question of public health insurance. But i t was later recognized that the Royal Commission had l i t t l e to do with the collapse of the health insurance scheme, which was i n fact due to the refusal of the medical profession of B.C. to accept such a plan, coupled with the disinclination of the Attorney-General to take the drastic steps necessary to enforce i t . ^ 3 9 For though the Commission, i n i t s report published i n 191+-0, recommended "that, i f a system of Health Insurance i s to be adopted, i t ought to be instituted and administered by the Province,""^"0 the Government s t i l l did not legislate on the issue. Failure to bring into operation a system of state health insurance was a bitter disappointment to Dr. G. M. Weir, almost resulting i n his resignation.""*"*"*1 It also produced dissatisfaction in Liberal Party circles. The C.C.F. reacted by i n i t i a t i n g a 127 series of motions In 1937, 1938, 1939, 19i+2, and which requested the legislature to consider a measure of public health insurance, but these motions were ruled out of order as involving the expenditure of public f u n d s . I t was not un t i l 19i|.8, eleven years after the plebiscite, that the Government introduced and secured the passage of a b i l l providing for a compulsory system of hospital insurance, while provision for medical services and maternity benefits has yet to be made. The Liberal Government's use of the plebiscite on the question of public health insurance was justified. Unless the issue was voted on separately, i t would have been impossible, since a l l the parties supported public health insurance, to know whether a majority of the electorate did or not. An unmistakable mandate on the question was imperative i n view of the strong opposition of the medical profession and other pressure groups for the successful enforcement of any insurance plan. It i s d i f f i c u l t , however, to either justify or understand the Government's failure to make use of the mandate asked for and given by the electorate. While the opposition of the doctors made the Government's position d i f f i c u l t , i t could, with the help of the Attorney-General's Department have forced the doctors to accept a health insurance plan. Yet they made no effort to devise a new scheme or enforce the old, even after the Rowell-Sirois Report's recommendation that the provinces should be put i n a position to institute health insurance destroyed the only excuse they offered for their inaction on the question. 128 The Liberals had nothing to gain by repudiating the mandate they expressly asked for i n using a plebiscite, i n fact their decline i n provincial p o l i t i c s dates from the time of this repudiation. At the f i r s t general election following the plebiscite, the Liberals' representation was reduced from 31 to 20, while the C.C.P. representation was increased from 7 to 1 6 . The Liberals retained control of the Government only by forming a coalition with the Conservatives who held 11 seats.'^*" The Coalition Government remained i n power for eleven years, splitting into i t s component parties for the 19^2 election, when the electorate rejected a l l but six Liberals and four Conservatives, returning a Social Credit Government and a C.C.P. Opposition. While i t i s not possible to measure how much the repudiation by the Liberal Party of the mandate for a health insurance system contributed to this decline of electoral support, i t i s probably safe to conclude that i t was a leading factor, since the number of seats i t lost was almost matched by those gained by the C.C.P., which i n and out of the Legislature urged and i s s t i l l urging . the adoption of public health insurance. THE LIQUOR PLEBISCITE, 1952 The series of plebiscites which were held under the new Liquor Act, 1921+, resulted i n introducing beer parlors i n many areas including Vancouver and New Westminster, though they were rejected by Victoria. The B.C. Prohibition Association greeted these results with increasing alarm and at their annual convention i n 1931, the president blamed the apathy of the temperance-minded people for the success of the "wets" at the polls. "There i s no disguising the fact that we have been losing, he admitted, "but i f the people who really were opposed to the beer parlors had turned out In force we would have snowed the wet vote under." Another disappointed delegate charged that the church and many ministers throughout the province were "cool" towards prohibition. The prohibitionists were doomed to greater disappointments i n the future as the trend of public opinion became increasingly "wet."^4^ During the 1930's there was l i t t l e evidence of this trend. Almost no agitation for reforms i n the liquor lax^s occurred, beyond infrequent criticisms of the activities of the 129 130 rum-runners and the other bootleggers, as the more pressing problems resulting from the Great Depression occupied the p o l i t i c a l arena to the exclusion of other issues. However, i n the Liberal Party Caucus, held i n October, 1935, "the sale of beer and wine i n public dining-rooms on the basis of local option, not a province-wide plebiscite, was discussed. Premier Pattullo favoured this policy, but both the Cabinet and the Caucus were divided and so the issue was dropped.^'''' In 193&, there was newspaper speculation that the Legislature would deal with the highly controversial issue, hut i t proved to be i d l e . The next year, proprietors of hotels and restaurants were reported to be planning a move for a plebiscite i n Vancouver on the sale of beer and light wines i n their dining-rooms. But this too proved to be mere rumour as no delegation waited on the Government with such a request. At the November 1938 session of the Legislature, Thomas Uphill's B i l l to amend the Government Liquor Act, which dealt with the sale of beer, was defeated, on the motion for second reading. As a wartime emergency measure, greater restrictions were imposed on the sale of alcoholic beverages by the federal Government i n 1914-2. For the duration of the war: beer and liquor advertising were prohibited; the amount of beverage alcohol released from bond was sharply reduced; the alcoholic content of a l l d i s t i l l e d spirits was reduced to not greater than thirty per cent, underproof; and the hours of sale were restricted to eight.^' 1' 131 These restrictions produced shortages i n supply so that, frequently, the liquor stores could not meet the demands of their customers. To ease the situation, a system of rationing was introduced which proved irksome to the public as the many complaints recorded i n the newspapers of the time bear witness. The annoyances of the rationing system served to focus public attention on the Inadequacies of the liquor distribution system as a whole. After the vjar, as part of the general urge against restrictions, agitation for reform of the liquor laws once more appeared on the 1x52 p o l i t i c a l scene.^ Temperance opinion was the f i r s t to be publicly recorded, as the B.C. Temperance League and the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada advocated a royal commission rather than an immediate plebiscite on the liquor question.^ 3 Rumours of a plebiscite to be held at the general provincial election (later i n 191+5). had been i n circulation. Wo mention of such a plebiscite was made during the ensuing p o l i t i c a l campaign.' ^  At a meeting of the Vancouver Centre Liberal Association i n March, 19lj-6, a resolution was passed demanding an overhaul of government policy affecting administration of the provincial Liquor Act. The Association declared there was no necessity for a new act, the present one, i f properly enforced was wide enough. The need for more beer parlors as against more types of outlets was i, ere also n o t e d . T h r e e Coalition Members did not share these sentiments and pressed for liquor reforms, charging that "existing conditions are intolerable and must be changed. 132 The Attorney-General, Wismer, urged that a royal commission be set up to investigate the x^hole problem. Don C. Brown "warned that the repulsive features of prohibition - bootlegging, crime and juvenile delinquency - are creeping into the present system of liquor control and that a change must be made at once." Louis Lebaudois blamed "restrictions on the sale of liquor" for the increase i n consumption of alcoholic beverages. Neither indicated what changes-in the liquor distribution system were desirable. The Liquor Commissioner, Mr. Kennedy, also agreed that reforms were necessary and suggested a plebiscite on the sale of liquor with meals. The Government, took no action on these suggestions, proroguing the Legislature without bringing i n any reforms. Shortly after the session ended, the newspapers were again f u l l of rumours predicting that sweeping legislative amendments to the liquor act, including sale of beer and wine with meals and cocktail bars, would be forthcoming at the next s e s s i o n . ^ 8 Six months later, the Attorney-General quashed these, rumours with his announcement that the Government was not contemplating legislation providing for sale i n restaurants; adding that he was personally opposed to same.^ Since he made no state-ment as to the fate of cocktail bars, silence was taken for consent, and just before the 19i+7 Session opened, a Vancouver newspaper announced that the liquor act would be amended to permit a limited number of cocktail bars i n Vancouver and Victoria."^" 6 0 At the same time, the B.C. executive of the Trades and Labor Congress presented a lengthy brief to Premier Johnson 133 and his cabinet requesting: more beer licences; more liquor stores, longer opening hours for liquor stores; cocktail bars and the ending of liquor r a t i o n i n g . ^ 1 During the session, the Rev. Dr. John Coburn, general secretary of the Canadian Temperance Federation waited on the Attorney-General to protest against any increase i n the f a c i l i t i e s for public drinking. Instead he urged that there be no changes i n the liquor laws except i n the direction of greater restrictions. "Introduction of cocktail lounges and serving of beer and wines i n restaurants would be a retrograde step," and he warned, "we intend to fight i t as we intend to fight every application for every cocktail bar i n Ontario."^ 2 Despite the increasing agitation on the liquor issue, the Government was content to leave the liquor act unamended except for ending the permit system.^ 3 During October, 19ij.8, the B.C. Cabaret Owners' Association carried the campaign for more liquor outlets to the newspapers. In a series of advertisements, i t proclaimed that "the right to drink while eating and enjoying entertainment i s a personal right based on the widest interpretation of traditional Canadian freedom" and asked for liquor licences for B.C.'s established night c l u b s . T h e throne speech of February, I9I4.9, contained no mention of amendments which might permit the sale of liquor i n cabarets or restaurants.^^ Speaking later i n the session the Attorney-General confirmed that the Government planned no changes i n the Liquor Act, but hinted that at some future date the administration might recommend a plebiscite on the liquor 13k problem.^ 6 6 At the same time, he reported that he had received thousands of letters from church organizations and community welfare groups beseeching him "not to Introduce what they think would be another attractive opening for young people."^7 Like the proverbial bad penny, the question of liquor law reforms came up again at the 195>0 session of the Legislature. Wismer again shelved the problem, stating that he was too busy with other government problems and had no time to study the liquor problem; perhaps next year something might be done.""*"68 Next year, the Coalition Parties rejected any changes, deciding in caucus to delay action of the liquor question u n t i l the next election."-*"69 Three weeks later, Wismer announced this decision i n the House, revealing also that he saw no need of the plebiscite and was opposed to the sale of liquor by the glass, but would nevertheless accept the Government's policy.^''"0 The plebiscite was to be taken at a general election because an off-year plebiscite would produce only a small vote, resulting i n a minority decision and would, i n addition, give pressure groups with heavy financial backing a greater chance to influence the vote. It would also cost $300,000 to hold a plebiscite separate from a general election.^"'''"*" The terms of the plebiscite: "Are you i n favour of the sale of spirituous liquor and wine by the glass i n establishments licensed for such purpose?" were made public i n March, 19$2.^2' The wording of the plebiscite had a highly c r i t i c a l reception from some quarters. Harold Winqh, the (C.C.P.) Leader of the 135 Opposition, charged that the plebiscite was a "complete evasion, absolutely ndnsensical" and that the electorate would have dif f i c u l t y voting as i t would not know what i t was voting on.^ 7 3 The Victoria Daily Colonist echoed these charges, and added that the Liberal administration had been deliberately vague, so as to get a carte blanche from the electorate to do what i t liked with liquor control, should the Liberals be returned to power. In addition to being a "pig i n the poke offer" the plebiscite was a "death-bed repentance" offered by the Liberals as a vote-catchJng device-. 1^ The three major p o l i t i c a l parties, Liberal, Conservative, and G. C. P., were silent as to hovj they would view the plebiscite, none caring to define a liquor policy should the plebiscite vote be favourable. When announcing the plebiscite, the Liberal Government had promised to set up a representative committee to investigate methods of sale of liquor by the glass and the other 1±75 parties were agreeable to this. 4 - 1 ^ In addition, the Conservatives committed themselves to a policy of local option.^ 7^ They also attempted to capitalize on the liquor issue during the p o l i t i c a l campaign, charging that the wording of the plebiscite was not specific and should have contained three or four questions.^"7 7 The silence of the p o l i t i c a l parties on the liquor plebiscite combined with greater public interest i n other issues such as hospital insurance; the appearance of a new p o l i t i c a l party, the Social Credit Party; and the break-up of the Coalition 136 " of the Liberals and Conservatives resulted i n reducing the liquor issue to a matter of minor concern on the p o l i t i c a l scene. Two non-political groups, the Alcohol Research Council and the Citizens' Committee for Commonsense Liquor Laws took i t upon themselves to arouse the electorate's interest i n the plebiscite by information •as to what changes i n the liquor laws they believed would be i n -volved. The Alcohol Research Council was an organization set up by the Vancouver Council of Churches, the B.C. Temperance Federation and "other anti-liquor groups" and led the campaign for a "no" vote on the p l e b i s c i t e . ^ 8 The Council asked "Would you sign a blank cheque?" and warned that the plebiscite was not a prohibition issue, but i f passed would give the Government a free rein to open bars i n any d i s t r i c t . "Do you want an establishment i n your neighbourhood?" was one of i t s most frequently used slogans.^ 9 A "no" vote was also essential to protect land values as residential land values depreciate i n the neighbourhood of a bar. The Council admitted that "our present liquor system i s not satisfactory but grabbing at a pig-in-a-poke i s not the answer." It advocated instead, that the plebiscite be rejected, and a thorough study be made of the alcohol distribution system before the Government be given a free hand."4-80 For the same reasons, the Greater Victoria Citizens' Association also urged that a negative vote be registered, emphasizing that a "no" vote was essential "until we know what we are voting for."^- 8 1 Early i n May, a group known as the "Citizens' Committee for Commonsense Liquor Laws" was formed to campaign for a "yes" 137 vote on the plebiscite.^"®2 The claims of the Committee had a familiar ring. It argued that liquor by the glass was a "practical step toward temperance because i t eliminated the need to buy a minimum of a f u l l bottle of s p i r i t s . It would also reduce law-breaking by eliminating the "bottle under the table I Do e v i l . " 4 " -> The present law corrupted youth, by forcing adults to evade the law. The liquor laws were also unenforceable, adversely affected tourist travel, encouraged bootleggers, and were discriminatory because club members only could purchase liquor by the glass. The Committee did not advocate an indiscriminate issuance of licences and, with an eye on the slogans of the Alcohol Research Council, Insisted that licences could be issued only i n commercial zones and thus would not affect the residential areas.^ "®^ " It reminded the electorate that the Government had promised to appoint a committee to make a careful study of the liquor situation before any new legislation was introduced. "Vote yes to assure a change," the Committee urged as a no-vote would leave the unsatisfactory liquor situation i n t a c t . 4 ^ Furthermore, there was no guarantee that another twenty-eight years would not pass before the electorate were given a plebiscite on the issue.^®^ Voting on a straight ballot the electorate gave the plebiscite a f a i r l y substantial majority.*4'®7 A minority Government elected by a preferential ballot, was formed by the Social Credit members, who held nineteen out of the forty-eight seats.^®® F u l f i l l i n g the promise of the previous Government, the new one 138 appointed a royal commission, consisting of H. H. Stevens, Chairman, and George Home and Cecil Swanson, Commissioners."4"89 The Commission held twenty-seven public sittings, at which about two hundred briefs were submitted by "labour-union executives, boards of trade, chambers of commerce, hotel and restaurant associations, church associations and other organized groups" as well as by private individuals." 4" 9 0 Some of the Commission's recommendations included i n i t s report were: a three-member Liquor Control Board responsible to the Legislature; an inspection and enforcement branch of the Board (lax enforcement was one of the main criticisms of the present act); a permit system; sale of liquor by the glass i n dining-rooms of certain hotels; a limited number of public houses licensed for sale of beer by the glass; club licences of different types; a limited number of restaurants licensed for sale of liquor with meals; sale of liquor by the glass i n cabarets or night clubs, certain resorts, commercial boats and trains; and no sale to persons under twenty-one. The licensee and employees were to be responsible for observing the law and a l l regulations; infractions of which were to be punishable by suspension or cancellation of licences i n addition to any fines or imprisonment that may be imposed.*4"91 The Government Liquor Act, 1953* which was pa;ssed by the Legislature at i t s f i r s t session after the publication of the Liquor Report, contained varying degrees of most of these recommendations. Conspicuous among those not included was the membership of the Liquor Control Board, which according to the new 139 act was to be appointed by and responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council and not the Legislative A s s e m b l y , T h e Act also provided for a system of local option whereby a licensing area (as designated by the Act) was given the chance to decide by a plebiscitory vote which one or any combination of the following systems i t wanted: (a) Are you i n favour of the sale of beer, ale, and stout only under a public-house licence for consumption on licensed premises? (b) Are you i n favour of the sale of beer, ale, stout, and wine only under a dining-room licence for consumption with meals on licensed premises? (c) Are you i n favour of the sale of liquor under a dining-lounge licence for consumption with meals on licensed premises? (d) Are you i n favour of the sale of liquor under a lounge licence for consumption on licensed premises?, 493 The Liberal Government turned to the plebiscite as a convenient device to prevent a s p l i t i n the party over the liquor question. Several years of discussion had revealed a lack of party solidarity on the liquor issue. With a crucial election In the offing, the party could not afford a sp l i t on this question. Nor could the Government remain silent on i t any longer, as agitation for liquor law reforms had become too vjidespread. A vaguely-wordqd plebiscite, not committing the Government to any particular policy and yet promising reforms, i f a favourable vote were recorded, eased the Liberals out of a d i f f i c u l t position. DAYLIGHT SAVING PLEBISCITE, 1952 Daylight saving time, or the practice of advancing the clock one hour ahead of standard time, was, i n addition to the liquor issue, made the subject of a plebiscite i n 1952. Of a less controversial nature than the liquor issue, i t commanded less public interest, and compared with the other p o l i t i c a l issues, was of negligible importance. This lack of interest was i n complete contrast with the public's reception of the f i r s t daylight saving legislation. In 1918, the federal parliament of Canada enacted legislation to provide for daylight saving time only over the strong protests of members representing farming constituencies. The f i r s t year of i t s operation produced vociferous complaints from farming communities who claimed that daylight saving time meant an hour's work per day lost as cows could not be milked any earlier and heavy dew on the ground made f i e l d work impossible. Their complaints were effective for when the Act came up for renewal the next year, i t was dropped; the federal government preferring to leave i t up to the municipalities to decide whether they wanted i t or not.^ 1" The B r i t i s h Columbia: Legislature reacted by passing an act empowering the Lieutenant-lkO l i p -Governor i n council to institute daylight saving when he deemed de s i r a b l e . H ^ "Past time" became a l i v e l y issue i n Vancouver i n June, 19iA» when the City Council announced that i f the provincial Government did not institute daylight saving for the province, i t would do so for V a n c o u v e r . A n Immediate reply was forth-coming. By order-in-council, daylight saving was to be i n effect i n British Columbia from July 6, I9I4J. to October 1, 19i4-2.^9 7 In Chilliwack, a rural d i s t r i c t , the reaction was immediate. Ninety farmers attended a Chilliwack Board of Trade meeting, and claiming that fast time caused them a loss of two hours per day working time, adopted a resolution to be forwarded to the Premier "that agricultural areas of B r i t i s h Columbia be allowed to revert to Standard Time."^^ The request was not granted so Chilliwack turned to her neighbours for support against fast time. At the invitation of Chilliwack 1s municipal council, the municipal councils of Surrey, Matsqui and Delta, endorsed a resolution favouring a return to Standard Time on September 1, with Langley delaying u n t i l October 1. The various school boards of the municipalities Involved lent their support as they claimed that fast time produced d i f f i c u l t i e s i n transporting children to school during the early morning i n winter months; children i n outlying di s t r i c t s would have to leave home before dawn.^"" While this controversy was s t i l l raging the federal Government ordered fast time for the Dominion for the duration of the war.''00 Ik2 As the practice was highly popular with most city dwellers, the provincial Government, by order-in-council continued i t after the war, but only for the summer months from 191+5 to 1952. Protests were s t i l l heard from the farming communities. Finally, according to the Daily Province, i t xras at the request of Alex Hope (Conservative, Delta) "who claimed farmers would no longer complain about daylight saving (time) i f the province as a whole voted in favor," that the Government decided i n March, 1952, to hold a plebiscite on the question at the same time as the 501 provincial general election. The plebiscite may also have been held to ensure a large rural turnout at the election as the issue was of great interest, to the farmers. Though supporters and opposers of fast time could roughly be divided into urban and rural dwellers respectively, neither one formed an organization to campaign for or against the plebiscite. Nor did any of the p o l i t i c a l aparties take a stand on the issue. As one newspaper commented "Nobody i s saying 502 anything about daylight saving time." Daylight saving time received a favourable vote, though 503 not so large as that of the liquor plebiscite. It i s interesting to note that i n thirteen of the nineteen electoral d i s t r i c t s which returned Social Credit members, the plebiscite was rejected.^ 0^" Since 1952, fast time has been proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor under the authority of the Daylight Saving Act, 1919, without incurring protests from the farming community. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS At the beginning of this paper i t was indicated that its purpose was to determine why plebiscites were used, what were the advantages and disadvantages of their usage and whether they were an asset or l i a b i l i t y to responsible government. The observations and conclusions on these points, given i n this chapter, can only be as valid as the evidence upon which they are premised. Where such evidence was scarce, as that regarding the daylight saving plebiscite, i t would be foolhardy to venture conclusions and so only observations have been made. Where evidence existed which could lo g i c a l l y be made the basis for a number of varying interpretations, as that regarding the liquor plebiscites, the conclusions drawn w i l l probably reflect my own opinions. The theoretical advantage of a plebiscite, that of enabling the elector to vote for a party and against an issue or vice versa, was particularly evident in the 1909 local option plebiscite. 505 Premier McBride, seeking an electoral mandate for his railway policy was suddenly faced with largely-signed petitions from the temperance societies requesting immediate, 11+3 radical changes in the liquor laws. While the number of signatures on the societies' petitions was large enough to make i t p o l i t i c a l l y dangerous to ignore their requests, i t did not represent a majority of the electorate and so could not authorize McBride to legislate on the liquor question without further reference to the electorate. Were i t an ordinary general election, the reference could have been made in the customary way by inserting a liquor plank i n the party's platform, but the impending election had been called for the express purpose of endorsing McBride's railway policy. If the liquor issue had been injected into the electoral campaign, It would have forced the electorate to choose between a railway and a saloon and probably have l e f t both choices in doubt. A plebiscite on the liquor issue provided the electorate with the opportunity of expressing i t s opinion on both questions without prejudice to either, thus also providing McBride with unequivocable mandates for both local option and railway construction. The advantage in separating an issue from party politics was also evident in the public health insurance plebiscite of 1937. A plan of health insurance had been devised, after a four-year investigation by a Royal Commission, and further investigation by a public health insurance committee, which provided for a limited system of health insurance, that i s , i t was to be applied only to the lowest wage earning groups as the disturbed economic conditions made i t impossible for the lkS-Government to finance the cost of a more extensive scheme. However, before the plan could be brought i n t o o p e r a t i o n , i t was opposed by a number of i n f l u e n t i a l pressure groups i n c l u d i n g the medical p r o f e s s i o n , whose o b j e c t i o n extended t o r e f u s a l to accept the p l a n . I n the face o f such formidable o p p o s i t i o n the Government decided to seek a mandate on the p r i n c i p l e o f the pl a n , that i s , a l i m i t e d system of h e a l t h insurance t o be expanded as revenues permitted. I f approved, the Government would make the adjustments necessary to secure the approval o f the medical p r o f e s s i o n . The usual p r a c t i c e of p l a c i n g a h e a l t h insurance plank i n the p a r t y programme and then seeking an e l e c t o r a l mandate would not have revealed the e l e c t o r a t e ' s wishes on the i s s u e , as every p o l i t i c a l p a r t y had been on r e c o r d as approving some scheme i n v o l v i n g i t since 1919. With an unequivocal vote i n favour of a l i m i t e d scheme, the Government would be i n a p o s i t i o n to coerce the medical p r o f e s s i o n , i f necessary, i n t o o p e r a t i n g a p u b l i c h e a l t h insurance p l a n . Only a p l e b i s c i t e could provide t h i s mandate. The s p e c i a l advantage assigned to the p l e b i s c i t e w i t h regard t o moral i s s u e s , that i s that o n l y the e l e c t o r s ' d i r e c t "vote can bind the p u b l i c conscience, was claimed by the various governments f o r t h e i r l i q u o r p l e b i s c i t e s of 1916, 1920 and 192k, but r e f u t e d i n p r a c t i c e . P r i o r to 1916, Bowser had been content to support McBride's l i q u o r ' l e g i s l a t i o n and indeed, as Attorney-General, assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r en f o r c i n g i t , although i t had not re c e i v e d d i r e c t approval by the e l e c t o r a t e . Y et, w i t h Ili6 the advent of the question of p r o h i b i t i o n , the l i q u o r i s s u e suddenly became sacrosanct, w i t h Bowser, now Premier, c l a i m i n g that only the e l e c t o r a t e could decide the question. The use of the referendum on p r o h i b i t i o n was a d e l i b e r a t e attempt to remove the l i q u o r i s s u e from p o l i t i c s , which f a i l e d when the L i b e r a l s , under Brewster, t r e a t e d p r o h i b i t i o n l i k e any other p o l i t i c a l issue by campaigning on t h e i r "dry" r e p u t a t i o n . Since 1912, the L i b e r a l Party had had a temperance plank i n i t s p l a t f o r m and Brewster now promised the e l e c t o r a t e t h a t r e g a r d l e s s o f the vote on the referendum, he would, i f e l e c t e d , pass a p r o h i b i t i o n law. The e l e c t o r a t e followed Brewster's l e a d by t r e a t i n g the referendum as a p a r t i s a n i s s u e and went to the p o l l s to approve the referendum and the "dry" L i b e r a l Party and r e j e c t the "wet" Conservative P a r t y . In 1920, Premier O l i v e r and h i s L i b e r a l Government undertook the same r e v e r s a l o f p o l i c y that the Conservative Government under Bowser had done e a r l i e r ; s t a t i n g that changes i n l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n i n v o l v e d a moral issue which only the e l e c t o r a t e , unaided by guidance from the p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , could decide. This time the Opposition P a r t y (the Conservative) acquiesced and i t was o n l y the small S o c i a l i s t Party which t r e a t e d the l i q u o r question as a p a r t i s a n matter. . In order to emphasize i t s nonpartisan nature, the "Temperance P l e b i s c i t e " was h e l d some months before the p r o v i n c i a l general e l e c t i o n . Ik7 Yet the advantage of more e f f e c t i v e enforcement claimed f o r moral Issues when removed from the realm of p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s and voted on d i r e c t l y by the e l e c t o r a t e d i d not apply, i n the event, to t h i s . p l e b i s c i t e . As the o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e to a d i s c r e d i t e d system o f p r o h i b i t i o n , the p l e b i s c i t e o f f e r e d the e l e c t o r a t e an undefined l i q u o r d i s t r i b u t i o n system vaguely described as "Government c o n t r o l and sale."£°° However, the r e a l change i n l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n was embodied i n a p u b l i c b i l l , which, f o l l o w i n g the us u a l l e g i s l a t i v e processes, was approved by a p a r t i s a n v o t e . ^ 0? The p l e b i s c i t e thus o f f e r e d o n l y a chance to r e j e c t p r o h i b i t i o n and so the l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n which rep l a c e d i t could not cl a i m the support due to an act d i r e c t l y approved by the e l e c t o r a t e . Premier O l i v e r , s t i l l i n s i s t i n g t h a t l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n could only be decided outside the context of p a r t y p o l i t i c s , h e l d a p l e b i s c i t e on the sal e of beer by the gl a s s i n 192k. The Conservative Party and the newly formed P r o v i n c i a l P a r t y concurred i n t h i s view and so, though the p l e b i s c i t e was h e l d at the same time as a p r o v i n c i a l general e l e c t i o n , i t played no part, i n the p o l i t i c a l campaign.508 j n ^he f i r s t s e s s i o n o f the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly h e l d a f t e r the p l e b i s c i t e , the L i b e r a l Government r e f u t e d the s u p e r i o r i t y of the e l e c t o r a t e ' s d i r e c t voice i n moral i s s u e s , by enacting l e g i s l a t i o n p r o v i d i n g f o r a l o c a l o p t i o n system o f sale o f beer by the g l a s s , though the p l e b i s c i t e vote on t h i s issue had been negative. 2.14-8 It is evident then, that in dealing with the liquor problem, however sincere the attempt, i t has not been possible to treat i t as a moral, nonpartisan issue by use of the advisory or referendum p l e b i s c i t e . ^ 0 9 The liquor question has remained as a very l i v e l y , troublesome topic of party p o l i t i c s . It i s significant that in announcing the 195>2 liquor plebiscite, no attempt was made to present i t as a moral issue. Another of the advantages claimed for the plebiscite is that i t s employment for a contentious issue may avert a party s p l i t , that i s , a party may avoid legislating on an issue because such action would result in dissenting members leaving the party. A plebiscite on such questions shifts the onus for decision onto the public. If the plebiscitory vote i s favourable, i t may then be possible to overcome members' individual scruples and legislate on the subject without disruption of the party. This advantage was applicable o n l y ^ 1 0 to the 19$2 liquor plebiscite. Years of discussion of the liquor problem in party caucus and in the legislature revealed that the Liberal Party could not agree to changing the liquor laws despite growing public clamour for new ones. Paced with a crucial election in 195>2, the Liberal Party could no longer risk antagonizing the electorate by silence on the issue and so made i t the subject of a vaguely worded plebiscite, which, while not binding i t to a definite policy did promise reforms, i f the vote were favourable, and thus avoided a party s p l i t . 149 The chief disadvantage of the plebiscite, that i t is so vulnerable to misrepresentation and emotional oratory as to obscure the real issue from the electorate was amply shown by the 191o prohibition referendum. Coolly ignoring the truth, the "dry" elements proclaimed that the referendum i f approved would establish total prohibition of the sale, comsumption and t r a f f i c in liquor. The "wet" elements tried, in vain, to point out that the referendum provided for only a special type of prohibition, that of public drinking and r e t a i l sale as the province could not prohibit importation of liquor. Both "wets" and "drys" indulged in emotional appeals. The latter even imported evangelical speakers, including B i l l y Sunday, to impress the electorate with the fact that the referendum should be supported solely because i t abolished the "sinful liquor t r a f f i c . " The issue was further confused when both sides went so far as to appeal to the electorate to accept or reject the referendum on patriotic grounds, claiming that the result would affect the very outcome of the war. In the crossfire of these contradictory claims .and oratory, the prohibition act, which was the subject of the referendum, was forgotten. The electorate went to the polls, not to accept or reject the Act's twenty page provision for limited prohibition, but to say yes or no to the abstract ideal of total prohibition. In less dramatic fashion, the 1909 plebiscite was also the victim of misrepresentation by pressure groups who were opposed to i t . Their propaganda blurbs insisted that l£0 local option was the issue to be decided, quoting the actual wording of the plebiscite as their authority. In the absence of an o f f i c i a l denial, many people voted according to this interpretation, whereas they were actually voting on a local option law, a considerably different matter.^ 1 1 Vagueness in wording in each of the 1920, 1921}. and 1952 liquor plebiscites also encouraged misrepresentation by pressure groups. The government control phrase of the Temperance plebiscite was stressed by the Moderation League as implying a sort of rationing system, which the Government would use to prevent excessive consumption of liquor, whereas the ensuing legislation was concerned only with sale. .Similarly, the failure of the Government to define "licensed premises" or explain that the principle of local option would operate, enabled the prohibitionists to threaten the public with the return of the dreaded bar, and worse yet, i t s appearance on every corner, i f the beer-by-the-glass plebiscite was approved in I92J4.. Yet the following legislation expressly forbade the return of the bar^ 1 2 and provided for glass sale of beer only on the basis of local option so that even the i n i t i a t i v e for i t rested with each municipality. The seemingly wide authority for liquor outlets in the 1952 liquor plebiscite enabled the "dry" elements to issue a threat identical to that of I92I4., whereas the resulting legislation was again based on the principle of local option. While i t is not possible to measure the extent these claims influenced the outcome of the vote, i t is probably safe to 151 conclude that at least some of the electorate were affected and voted under a misconception. Another theoretical disadvantage of the plebiscite is that i t enables the government to evade responsibility for a "hot issue." There was evidence of this p o l i t i c a l expediency in each of the liquor plebiscites. McBride, in 1909, faced with a bona fide dilemma, used the plebiscite to dispose of the local option question instead of "carrying out the desire of the people of the Province in the matter."-'13 Though he promised, early in February, that a plebiscite would be held and that "ample time" would "be given between the announcement and the taking of the plebiscite,"^ 1" 4" i t was not un t i l late October that the date was announced, while the wording was not revealed u n t i l eleven days before the vote was t a k e n . I n the ensuing months the wildest speculation concerning the terms of the plebiscite was indulged in, with the result that the brief time between the announcement of the terms and the vote was insufficient to clear up the many misconceptions that had been created. The wording of the plebiscite added to the misconceptions as the ballot read "plebiscite for local option" while McBride intended treating i t as i f the words "plebiscite for a local option law" had appeared on the b a l l o t . ^ 1 6 McBride, however, did not trouble to make his intention known and many people accepted the words at their face value and voted accordingly. 1*2 While u n f a r a i l i a r i t y w i t h the p l e b i s c i t e technique might excuse much of McBride's handling of the p l e b i s c i t e p r i o r t o the a c t u a l v o t i n g , the se r i o u s i r r e g u l a r i t i e s surrounding the v o t i n g procedures provide i r r e f u t a b l e evidence o f McBride's p o l i t i c a l bad f a i t h . Returning o f f i c e r s were not given any i n s t r u c t i o n s regarding the issuance, c o l l e c t i o n and counting of the p l e b i s c i t e b a l l o t s , w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t each r e t u r n i n g o f f i c e r acted as he saw f i t . Some gave out b a l l o t s o n l y i f requested, w h i l e others d i d not bother to c o l l e c t them from the vo t e r s . Worse y e t , not a l l p o l l i n g booths were s u p p l i e d w i t h b a l l o t s nor were they c o l l e c t e d from oth e r s . Such negligence becomes s i n i s t e r when i t i s r e a l i z e d t h a t McBride made the s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t the p l e b i s c i t e to be approved needed f i f t y per cent, plus one, of the b a l l o t s cast f o r candidates. Yet when pr o t e s t s were lodged regarding these f l a g r a n t i r r e g u l a r i t i e s , McBride, making no attempt to r e f u t e or deny them, t r e a t e d the fraudulent vote as the f i n a l word on the l o c a l o p t i o n question. In McBride's handling of the l o c a l o p t i o n i s s u e , i t i s evident that he, w h i l e p r o f e s s i n g l a c k of a u t h o r i t y to l e g i s l a t e on the i s s u e , had no compunction about ensuring the outcome o f a p l e b i s c i t e on i t , by ac t i o n s designed to produce a negative vote. Most s i g n i f i c a n t of a l l , one must take McBride's word that the vote was negative, as there i s no extant o f f i c i a l r e cord of the 1909 p l e b i s c i t o r y vote. 153 McBride's high-handed treatment of the l o c a l o p t i o n question d i d not dispose o f the l i q u o r problem and by 1915* the growing p r o h i b i t i o n sentiment reached such proportions that i t was p o l i t i c a l l y dangerous f o r him to ignore t h e i r requests f o r p r o h i b i t o r y l e g i s l a t i o n . By then t o o , a n t i - p r o h i b i t i o n o p i n i o n had been w e l l organized and was u r g i n g McBride not to enact p r o h i b i t o r y laws. Caught between the two c o n f l i c t i n g demands, McBride sought an escape by o f f e r i n g to h o l d a p l e b i s c i t e on the s u b j e c t . But the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s , r e c a l l i n g t h e i r 1909 experience w i t h a p l e b i s c i t e , r e j e c t e d the o f f e r and i n s i s t e d upon a referendum. No d e c i s i o n had been taken when McBride resigned h i s premiership and h i s successor, Bowser, was l e f t to f i n d a s o l u t i o n i n an e l e c t i o n year. Bowser e l e c t e d to remain s i l e n t on the i s s u e , u n t i l three b y - e l e c t i o n s , r e s u l t i n g i n defeat of three of h i s cabinet members, fo r c e d him to announce h i s p o l i c y i n regard to p r o h i b i t i o n . 517 He attempted to appease the two strong, c o n f l i c t i n g pressure groups by making p r o h i b i t i o n the subject of a referendum p l e b i s c i t e , though he defended h i s d e c i s i o n as necessary because p r o h i b i t i o n was a moral problem r e q u i r i n g personal acceptance or r e j e c t i o n by the e l e c t o r a t e . The expedient f a i l e d , when the e l e c t o r a t e , judging on the Conservatives' past l i q u o r p o l i c i e s , disregarded the moral i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and voted f o r the "dry" referendum and against the "wet" Conservatives. By 1920, p u b l i c d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h p r o h i b i t i o n had become so strong, i t was apparent that the l i q u o r problem would 154 be an issue at the general e l e c t i o n that year unless the L i b e r a l Government was able to provide more acceptable l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n . Yet the L i b e r a l s ' wholehearted endorsement of p r o h i b i t i o n had accounted f o r much of t h e i r success at the p o l l s and an open r e v e r s a l of p o l i c y would be p o l i t i c a l l y unwise. Premier O l i v e r , f o l l o w i n g h i s predecessors i n o f f i c e , o f f e r e d a p l e b i s c i t e on the l i q u o r i s s u e . H is p l e b i s c i t e p a i d l i p s e r v i c e t r i b u t e to p r o h i b i t i o n sentiment by o f f e r i n g c o n t i n u a t i o n of the B. C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act as one choice. The other choice, government sa l e and c o n t r o l , w h i l e h o l d i n g out the p o s s i b i l i t y o f p u b l i c s a l e of l i q u o r i m p l i e d a moderate system of r e t a i l l i q u o r o u t l e t s and not a r e t u r n to the saloons and bars so o f f e n s i v e to p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s . The Temperance p l e b i s c i t e , w h i l e succeeding i n removing the l i q u o r i s s u e from the ensuing p o l i t i c a l campaign, caused d i f f i c u l t i e s when i t came to fo r m u l a t i n g e f f e c t i v e l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n . When the terms of the p l e b i s c i t e were announced, various groups had p e t i t i o n e d O l i v e r to in c l u d e a "sale of beer and wine under trade l i c e n s e " clause to government c o n t r o l and s a l e , but he refu s e d . Such s a l e provided much acrimonious debate when the l i q u o r b i l l was under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the l e g i s l a t u r e , but O l i v e r refused t o advocate i t , c l a i m i n g that the p l e b i s c i t o r y vote was s p e c i f i c a l l y a n t i - b a r . ^ 1 8 Like McBride's e a r l i e r d i s m i s s a l o f l o c a l o p t i o n , O l i v e r ' s narrowly i n t e r p r e t e d p l e b i s c i t e d i d not dispose o f the 155 question of p u b l i c s a l e of beer by the g l a s s . Instead, i t r e s u l t e d i n the widespread existence of beer c l u b s . The number of these clubs n u l l i f i e d the law p r o h i b i t i n g the sale of beer. D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the anomalous p o s i t i o n of such sale became i n c r e a s i n g l y v o c i f e r o u s , w i t h p e t i t i o n s from the Moderates advocating p r o v i s i o n f o r p u b l i c sale and from the p r o h i b i t i o n i s t s advocating a r e t u r n to p r o h i b i t i o n . Caught once again between the c o n f l i c t i n g demands of two pressure groups, O l i v e r refused to take any a c t i o n on the beer question, u n t i l the nearness o f a general e l e c t i o n made continued s i l e n c e p o l i t i c a l f o l l y . And so the question which O l i v e r would not consider i n 1920 became 0 the beer-by-the-glass p l e b i s c i t e i n 1 9 2 l i . Again at the i n s i s t e n c e o f pressure groups, the L i b e r a l Government of 1952 x^as f o r c e d to s a i l i n the t r i c k y waters o f l i q u o r l e g i s l a t i o n i n an e l e c t i o n year, and l i k e i t s predecessors, sought to ease the course by a vaguely worded p l e b i s c i t e . Since the e l e c t o r s repudiated the L i b e r a l s at the e l e c t i o n , i t was l e f t to the new S o c i a l C r e d i t Government to i n t e r p r e t the p l e b i s c i t o r y vote and provide new l i q u o r laws. I n c o n c l u s i o n i t must be noted t h a t i n so f a r as the l i q u o r p l e b i s c i t e s are concerned, both the advantages and disadvantages of p l e b i s c i t e s were q u a l i f i e d . Prom the e l e c t o r a t e ' s poi n t of view, i t was of no advantage to be able to vote on an is s u e separate from g e n e r a l p a r t y p o l i c y , unless that i s s u e was c l e a r l y s t a t e d . There was no s a t i s f a c t i o n to be gained from v o t i n g f o r a "pig-in-a-poke" as the p u b l i c was asked to do i n 15"6 each of the undefined l i q u o r p l e b i s c i t e s . For the p o l i t i c i a n s , the p l e b i s c i t e provided only a b r i e f r e s p i t e . Disposing of the l o c a l o p t i o n i s s u e gained o n l y s i x years f o r the Conservatives, who then had to face the more c o n t r o v e r s i a l p r o h i b i t i o n problem w i t h the shady r e p u t a t i o n f o r h a n d l i n g l i q u o r questions gained by the 1909 p l e b i s c i t e . S i m i l a r l y , f a i l u r e t o make p r o v i s i o n f o r the sale of beer i n the Temperance p l e b i s c i t e o n l y delayed d e c i s i o n on the iss u e as the L i b e r a l s had to deal w i t h i t four years l a t e r , w h i l e the P a t t u l l o Government's experience w i t h the p u b l i c h e a l t h insurance question revealed the danger o f i g n o r i n g a p l e b i s c i t o r y mandate. When t h i s Government f a i l e d to i n s t i t u t e a system of h e a l t h insurance a f t e r a m a j o r i t y of the e l e c t o r s approved a p l e b i s c i t e on the i s s u e , i t was repudiated at the p o l l s by the e l e c t o r a t e . The d a y l i g h t saving p l e b i s c i t e does not provide i n d i s p u t a b l e evidence f o r any of the t h e o r e t i c a l advantages and disadvantages discussed above. While d a y l i g h t saving d i d arouse controversy i n the e a r l y 19k0's, i t was not an important issue by 1952. No pressure groups had been organized to seek or prevent i t s enactment, and so face the government w i t h making an embarrassing d e c i s i o n i n an e l e c t i o n year. I t was not then a choice between issue or pa r t y , nor was i t a moral i s s u e . As a c l e a r l y s t a t e d n o n - c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s s u e , i t was not subjected to misr e p r e s e n t a t i o n or obscured by emotional o r a t o r y . Perhaps the strongest case can be made f o r p o l i t i c a l expediency, f o r w h i l e no organized groups e x i s t e d to marshal o p i n i o n s , supporters 157 and opponents could roughly be d i v i d e d i n t o urban and r u r a l e l e c t o r s r e s p e c t i v e l y . Since i t was a c r u c i a l e l e c t i o n i n which every vote would count, the L i b e r a l Government d i d not wish to r i s k a l i e n a t i n g the marginal voters i n e i t h e r group by l e g i s l a t i n g on the issue and so put i t to a p l e b i s c i t e . ^ 1 9 To an even greater extent, the woman's suffrage referendum i s i n c o n c l u s i v e concerning the t h e o r e t i c a l advantages and disadvantages o f p l e b i s c i t e s . Enfranchisement o f women was not a moral i s s u e , nor was i t c o n t r o v e r s i a l as no pressure groups e x i s t e d t o oppose i t . I t was saved from the e f f e c t s o f emotional o r a t o r y by the more contentious p r o h i b i t i o n act. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to make a case f o r p o l i t i c a l expediency without accusing Bowser of u n b e l i e v a b l y bad judgment. Opinion was so favourable to woman's suffrage t h a t there was more to be gained by l e g i s l a t i n g f o r i t than by making i t the subject of a referendum. Bowser, aware o f t h i s f a c t urged support f o r the referendum i n the ensuing campaign. Perhaps the suffrage s o c i e t i e s were c o r r e c t when they accused Bowser of us i n g the referendum to s i d e t r a c k the i s s u e , f o r although the L i b e r a l s i n c l u d e d i t In t h e i r e l e c t o r a l p l a t f o r m , the greater i n t e r e s t i n other i s s u e s made i t d i f f i c u l t even to make the e l e c t o r s aware o f the suffrage i s s u e , l e t alone i t s importance. The a l t e r n a t i o n o f Government and Opposition which t h e o r e t i c a l l y compensates f o r the absence of d i r e c t democracy techniques i n re s p o n s i b l e government would have rendered the use of p l e b i s c i t e s unnecessary only i n the case of the p r o h i b i t i o n 158 and woman's suffrage issues. The Conservative Government's repeated refusal to legislate on these questions, emphasized by their rejection of private b i l l s for woman's suffrage, as contrasted to the Liberals' platform promises favouring both prohibition and enfranchisement of women, provided the electorate with a clear-cut choice as between parties, oh both these Issues. Prom the experience of the prairie provinces, there was a definite advantage to be gained for the Liberals by campaigning on these questions. There was, however, no such advantage to be gained by u t i l i z i n g the other liquor issues, which became subjects of plebiscites, and so neither the Government nor Opposition Party would consider them i n their p o l i t i c a l programmes. The electorate therefore having no choice as between a "wet" and a "dry" party, the alternation between Government and Opposition did not provide for an expression of opinion on liquor reforms. Nor would this alternation have provided the electorate with a choice on public health Insurance, as both Government and Opposition were i n favour of such a scheme. Private Members' b i l l s , the theoretical substitute for in i t i a t i v e and referendum, were u t i l i z e d only for the woman's suffrage issue, and, after 1 9 2 k , the liquor question.^ 2 1 Sixteen private b i l l s for the enfranchising of women were Introduced between 1887 and 191k , but the Government of the day,^ 2 2 i n spite of increasingly stronger public favour,523 refused to support them, defeating them at division on second reading. A seventeenth opportunity met a similar fate when the Conservative Government 159 opposed a private b i l l introduced i n 1916 by two of i t s own members, insisting that i t was preferable to hold a referendum on the question. The b i l l s , while unsuccessful i n their primary purpose, did succeed, not only i n keeping the question before the public, but also i n establishing the h o s t i l i t y of the Conservatives to i t . When the Conservative Government later tried to remove the suffrage issue from p o l i t i c s , by using a referendum on i t , the attempt was not successful. Thus though the Government, i n form, departed from the usual processes of responsible government, the issue was, i n effect, decided on the basis of the alternation of Government and Opposition. Prior to the period following the 192k plebiscite, there was no attempt to u t i l i z e Private Members' b i l l s for liquor reforms, because pressure groups addressed their petitions to the Government. Even during the Conservative regime of 1903-1916, which was implacably opposed to their demands, the temperance societies did not attempt to air them i n the legislature through private b i l l s . N o r were the p o l i t i c a l parties interested i n focussing attention on the liquor issue by having one of their members introduce a private b i l l . The Conservatives were satisfied with their liquor legislation, the Socialists were opposed to prohibition, and after 1912, prohibition's only supporters, the Liberals, x^ ere not represented i n the legislature. Between 1916 and 192k, both the Liberal Government and the Conservative Opposition were anxious to avoid any legislative discussion involving liquor. When the insistence of the pressure 160 groups for liquor reforms became too strong to ignore, the Government resorted to a plebiscite. It never attempted to take the i n i t i a t i v e for reforms, by testing opinion through discussion on a private b i l l . Between 192k and 195'2, Conservative and Liberal parties' reluctance to discuss new liquor legislation continued and private b i l l s seeking changes i n the liquor laws were limited to those of the Socialist member, Thomas Uphill, who unsuccessfully sponsored several b i l l s dealing with the sale of beer. Again, when pressure groups became too insistent to be safely ignored, a plebiscite, not a private b i l l , was used to i n i t i a t e new liquor legislation. In discussing the larger question of what effect the plebiscite had on responsible government, i t i s necessary to distinguish between the advisory and the referendum types. In the former, the plebiscite involves an expression of opinion which does not obligate the legislature to enact legislation. Thus while the advisory plebiscite enabled the Government to air opinions on various liquor issues and so aid It i n deciding what general direction legislation should take, whether more or less restrictive, the f i n a l responsibility for such legislation s t i l l rested with the Government. It had to secure the majority approval of the legislature and i f necessary, defend i t s legislation at the next election. The advisory plebiscite therefore, did not weaken the letter of responsible government, nor did i t weaken the s p i r i t of i t , for when the McBride Government used a plebiscite solely 161 to dispose of the local option issue, the resentment aroused by this apparent evasion of responsibility made i t impossible for him to use the advisory plebiscite for the prohibition issue. For moral issues, like the various contentious liquor reforms, which both the alternative of Government and Opposition and of the Private Member's b i l l failed to bring before the legislature, though legislation was desired on them, the advisory plebiscite played a useful role, aiding not weakening responsible government. The referendum plebiscite, as a direct 1aw-approving device by which a specific act i s referred from the legislature to the electorate for i t s approval or rejection is destructive of responsible government. In order to substantiate this claim, i t is necessary to examine the different bases of direct democracy, of which the referendum i s a technique, and representative responsible government. Direct democracy originated in the United States to correct abuses of their governmental system, i n which the executive is not responsible to the legislature, but directly to the electorate, as the executive is elected separately from the legislature by a numerical majority of the citizens. In other words the individual citizen is the creator and motive power of both the executive authority and the legislative authority. Thus when the American electorate asserted the right to i n i t i a t e and refer legislation, i t was not claiming a new power, but giving a different expression to an old one. 162 Responsible government proceeds from a radically different basis, with the executive authority originating not with the individual citizen but with the monarch. It i s best described by the phrase, government by the "King i n Parliament," i n which the King, by and with the consent of parliament governs the nation. In current Br i t i s h Columbia practice, this means the executive p'owers invested i n the Lieutenant-Governor are exercised by a cabinet with the majority consent of the popularly elected legislature. The cabinet i s made up of ministers chosen from the p o l i t i c a l party (called the Government party) which has ^25 gained a majority of seats i n the legislature.^ ^ The cabinet i s thus responsible to the legislature and may continue to exercise the executive powers only so long as i t retains the 526 support of this majority or u n t i l a new election.^ The Cabinet usually originates legislation on a l l matters of public concern and legislation involving the expenditure or raising of money 527 must originate with a Government b i l l . The active and originating element i n legislation i s thus the Cabinet. The legislature does not i n i t i a t e legislation or govern but secures f u l l discussion of matters both legislative and administrative as the price of i t s assent to government policy. To balance the power of the Cabinet i n responsible government, there i s an Opposition, which as c r i t i c and alternative to the Government, prevents arbitrary use of i t s executive pox-rers. In exercising the sovereignty of the w i l l of the people over legislation i n cabinet government, the individual voter i s 163 l i m i t e d i n f u n c t i o n to the choosing between the two a l t e r n a t i v e s , the Government and the Opposition. He must i n t h i s s i n g l e choice approve both p o l i c y and legislator,^2® though the Government and Opposition are both i n f l u e n c e d i n t h e i r p o l i c i e s by p u b l i c o p i n i o n which each voter has h i s share i n forming. But when the referendum was used, i t gave the e l e c t o r a t e an a u t h o r i t y over l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y denied to i t by the cabinet system. When the r i g h t to r e f e r l e g i s l a t i o n t o the c i t i z e n s i s asserted, then by c o r o l l a r y , the r i g h t to i n i t i a t e cannot be denied, but as j u s t shown, i n i t i a t i o n of p o l i c y i s an executive f u n c t i o n , indeed the very b a s i s o f cabinet government. I f the dangerous precedent set by the Conservative Government i n r e f e r r i n g the B.C. P r o h i b i t i o n Act and the Women's Suffrage Act, that i s , to r e f e r what i t i s a f r a i d to enact, had been continued, and then l o g i c a l l y expanded to i nclude the i n i t i a t i v e , r e s p o n s i b l e government would have become too unstable to provide good government or would have ceased to e x i s t . Succeeding governments have ignored t h i s d i s r u p t i v e precedent and the cabinet system continues unweakened by d i r e c t democracy t e c h n i q u e s . ^ 2 9 I t i s hazardous to p r e d i c t p o s s i b l e use of the advisory p l e b i s c i t e i n the f u t u r e , but from past experience i t would seem apparent that any changes i n the l i q u o r laws i n B.C. w i l l be preceded by an advisory p l e b i s c i t e . Since l i q u o r i n v o l v e s a moral i s s u e , i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r a p o l i t i c a l p a r t y to formulate and present to the e l e c t o r a t e a p o l i c y on the question, unless circumstances should, as they d i d i n the p r o h i b i t i o n p l e b i s c i t e , 16k i n v o l v e a d i s t i n c t p o l i t i c a l advantage. Thus almost the o n l y way the e l e c t o r a t e has a chance to express i t s o p i n i o n on l i q u o r questions i s through a p l e b i s c i t e . The P r i v a t e Member's B i l l does provide another o u t l e t f o r p u b l i c expression on moral questions, but i t has a dismal record o f no success i n securing changes i n l i q u o r laws i n the past. Thus f o r those issues i n which the p u b l i c d e s i r e s l e g i s l a t i o n , but n e i t h e r the choice between p a r t i e s nor the P r i v a t e Member\s B i l l succeeds i n b r i n g i n g them before the l e g i s l a t u r e , the advisory p l e b i s c i t e i s a necessary l a s t r e s o r t . I t i s even d e s i r a b l e i f one accepts the maxim th a t good government c o n s i s t s o f doing the p o s s i b l e . As the referendum p l e b i s c i t e cannot be used without e v e n t u a l l y d e s t r o y i n g r e s p o n s i b l e government In B.C., i t s p o s s i b l e future use can only be contemplated i f cabinet government were to be replaced w i t h some other form of government w i t h which i t s use i s compatible. While perhaps somewhat remote, t h i s replacement i s not a l together an i m p o s s i b i l i t y as cabinet government owes i t s o r i g i n and continued existence to i t s usefulness and could conceivably be overthrown when the p u b l i c decided that i t s usefulness had ended. U n t i l that time the referendum can be of no use i n the f u t u r e government of B.C. r FOOTNOTES 1 These are: the "Local Option Law" plebiscite, 1 9 0 9 ; the "B.C. Prohibition Act" referendum, 1916; the "Women's Suffrage Act" referendum, 1916; the "Temperance" plebiscite, 1920; the "Beer-by-the-Glass" plebiscite, 192k; the "Public Health Insurance and Maternity Benefits" plebiscite, 1937; the "Daylight Saving Time" plebiscite, 1 9 5 2 ; and the "Liquor" plebiscite, 1 9 5 2 . 2 W. P. M. Kennedy, Essays i n Constitutional Law, London, Oxford University Press, 1 9 3 k , pp. 9 6 - 7 . 3 Brit. Statutes. 30 Victoria, c. 5 . k-R. S. B. C. 19k8, c. 6 5 . Section lk of "The Terms of Union," which outlines the conditions under which British Columbia was to become a Province of Canada, also stated that British Columbia was to have responsible government. 5 S t r i c t l y speaking, the plebiscite does not belong to direct democracy for i t is not a device for making or repealing laws, but one for seeking opinions on specific issues. However, i t has been included here in this theory, as i t shares with the i n i t i a t i v e , referendum and r e c a l l , the same underlying principle: that of electoral opinion expressed on a specific issue. The sections on definitions give the exact technical differences. The term plebiscite in this paper w i l l denote advisory plebiscite and the term referendum w i l l denote referendum plebiscite unless otherwise stated. 6 Direct democracy may be defined as voting on a subject matter as distinguished from representative democracy, or the electing of persons to vote on a subject matter. 7 It i s important to note the American origin of this theory as i t was devised to correct the abuses of a government, which though representative, was based on the separation of powers with the Legislature and the Executive exercising powers without reference to each other. Thus when its devices, especially the referendum were employed by a B.C. Government, they were used out of context as B.C. enjoys a type of government in which the Executive is responsible to the Legislature. 8 Joseph G. LaPalombara, The Initiative and Referendum i n  Oregon: 1938-19k8. Oregon State Monographs, Studies in P o l i t i c a l Science, No. 1, Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon State College, 1 9 5 0 , P. 3 . 165 166 9 LaPalombara, Initiative and Referendum In Oregon, pp. 12-13. 10 It may be a part of statutory or organic law. 11 LaPalombara, loc. c i t . 12 Robert MacGregor Dawson, Democratic Government in Canada. Minneapolis, The University of Minneapolis Press, 194-9, p. Il4» 13 Roy V. Peel and Joseph S. Roucok, eds., Introduction to  Politics. New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 19k6, p. 3 6 . Ik The Liberal Government of British Columbia in 1919 passed an Act intituled the "Direct Legislation Act," (c. 21, Statutes of B.C., 1919). It provided for a system of i n i t i a t i v e and referendum similar to that of Alberta of 1915 (vide p. ). It was to become law on proclamation by the Lieutenant-Governor, but as that proclamation has never been issued, the Act has never been in force. It was enacted, according to Senator Parris, who was Attorney-General at the time, because the Liberal Party had committed i t s e l f to legislation of that kind in i t s platform at Revelstoke. (The Canadian Annual Review, 1916, p. 778, l i s t s direct legislation as one of the planks of the Liberal Party platform.) The Senator further stated that the Act was not proclaimed due to the uncertainty as to i t s Constitutional validity. The Act received royal assent just months before the Judicial Committee declared similar legislation of Manitoba to be u l t r a vires in the Matter of the Initiative and Referendum Act. (1919) L. J. P. C. U+2 (letter of Parris to Adams, April 12, 1956) (vide p. ). The Direct Legislation Act (c. 21, Statutes of B.C., 1919) is potential law and could, i f proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor, become law. 15 The term referendum used hereinafter in this paper w i l l , unless otherwise specified, refer to the type used in B.C., that i s , those employed on the volition of the Government. 16 William Bennett Munro, American Influences on Canadian  Government. Toronto, The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited, 1929, p. 9 6 . 17 To the p o l i t i c a l party which may, for various reasons, not wish to take a stand on an issue u n t i l opinion is definitely known on i t , this defect becomes a merit. This is especially true i f a definite stand on an issue would result in a s p l i t in the party. 18 In reply to a query as to whether the Confederation scheme i t s e l f should be r a t i f i e d by the electorate by making i t the subject of a referendum, Sir John A. MacDonald replied: ". . .as i t would be obviously absurd to submit the complicated details of such a measure to the people,t i t is not proposed to seek their sanction before asking the Imperial Government to introduce a 167 B i l l i n the B r i t i s h Parliament." (Hon. John A. MacDonald to John B e a t t i e , Esq., quoted i n Joseph Pope, Confederation, Toronto, The Caswell Co. L t d . , 1595, p. 21.1 19 The B r i t i s h North America Act. 1 8 6 7 . s e c t i o n s 9 1 , 92. "There i s nothing i n the way of ' C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L i m i t a t i o n s ' i n Canada any more than there i s i n England; once the subject i s found to be w i t h i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the Dominion or of the Province, the power must be h e l d to be absolute." ( W i l l i a m R. R i d d e l l , The Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n i n Form and i n Fact. New York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 2 3 , pp. 5 - 6 . 20 The B r i t i s h North America Act. 1 8 6 7 . s e c t i o n s 5 3 , 5 k , w i t h t h i s a d d i t i o n a l exception: no p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n may a f f e c t the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor ( i b i d . , sec. 92, no. 1 ) . 21 I b i d . . preamble. 22 "The B r i t i s h North America Act d i d not purport to be a comprehensive document l i k e the C o n s t i t u t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Conventions e x p l a i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n of the Governor-General, the Cabinet, the p o s i t i o n of the Prime M i n i s t e r and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Cabinet to the House of Commons." (Hood P h i l l i p s , The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Lawsof Great B r i t a i n and the  Commonwealth, London, Sweet and Maxwell L t d . , 1 9 5 2 , pp. 7 2 5 - 6 . ) 23 On succeeding pages c o n s t i t u t i o n a l w r i t t e n w i t h a c a p i t a l "C" w i l l r e f e r to i t s l e g a l d e f i n i t i o n and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l w r i t t e n w i t h a small "c" w i l l r e f e r to i t s p o l i t i c a l d e f i n i t i o n . 2k The B r i t i s h North America Act. 1 8 6 7 . s e c t i o n s 9 1 , 9 2 . 25 Since 1 9 k 7 , the Supreme Court of Canada makes the f i n a l d e c i s i o n as to the l e g a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a f e d e r a l or p r o v i n c i a l law. P r i o r to t h a t date, the J u d i c i a l Committee of the P r i v y C o uncil possessed f i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . 26 " C o n s t i t u t i o n a l conventions r e f e r s to r u l e s of a p o l i t i c a l p r a c t i c e which are regarded as binding by those whom they concern, but would not be enforced by the Courts i f the matter came before them." (Hood, op. c i t . , p. 2 3 . ) 27 This Act d i d not provide f o r a system of r e c a l l . 28 6 Geo 5 , c. 5 9 , Manitoba, sec. 3 ( 1 ) , if-, 9 ( 1 ) . 29 6 Geo 5 , c. 6 9 , Manitoba, sec. 7 . 30 6 Geo 5 , c. 5 9 , Manitoba, sec. 1 1 . 31 In the Matter of the I n i t i a t i v e and Referendum Act, 1919 L. J . P. C, l k 2 . The B r i t i s h North America Act, 1 8 6 7 , sec. 92 (1) denied to p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s the power to amend t h e i r C o n s t i t u t i o n s as regards the o f f i c e o f the Lieutenant-Governor. 168 32 In the Matter of the Initiative and Referendum Act, 1919 L. J. P. C. I k 2 . 33 (2 Geo 5) c. 3, Alberta. This Act provided for a system of in i t i a t i v e and referendum similar to Manitoba's and like i t made no provision for r e c a l l . 3k Rex v. Nat Bell Liquor Company Limited (1922) A. C. 2. 35 (2 Geo 5) c. 3, Alberta, sec. k. 36 The British North America Act. 1867. sec. 91, 9 2 . 37 Rex v. Nat Bell Liquor Company Limited (1922) A. C. 2. 38 The judges present in the Manitoba case were Viscount Haldane, Lord Buckmaster, Lord Dunedin, Lord Shax* of Dunfermline, and Lord Scott-Dickson, while the judges present in the Alberta case were Lord Buckmaster, Lord Atkinson, Lord Sumner, Lord Wrenbury, and Lord Carson. (Richard A. Olmsted, Decisions of the  Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relating to The British  North America Act. 1867 and The Canadian Constitution l86?-195k. vol. II, Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1954, P. 103, p. 268.) 39 Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. XI, London, Butterworth and Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 1933, p. 88. ko ¥. P. M. Kennedy, Essays in Constitutional Law, London, Oxford University Press, 193k, PP« 95-6. k l William Bennett Munro, American Influences, pp. 9k-5. k2 Independent candidates may also submit themselves to the electorate. k3 The Prime Minister is formally chosen by the Lieutenant-Governor. The executive power is invested i n the Lieutenant-Governor (in the Provinces) and his Privy Council, but is actually exercised by the Prime Minister and the other ministers. kk Riddell, Canadian Constitution, p. 20. k 5 Ivor Jennings, Cabinet Government, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1951, P. kok. The Opposition i s formed by the p o l i t i c a l party gaining the second highest number of seats at a general election and the head of this party is known as the Leader of the Opposition. k6 Ibid.. pp. k6k-6. k7 H. McD. Clokie, Canadian Government and Politics, Toronto, Longmans, Green & Company, 19kk, p. 9 9 , 169 ; Lj.8 Similarly, i f the Government is opposed to a Private Member's B i l l i t has no chance of success as the Government may wield i t s majority to reject the petition of the Private Member at the Standing Order's Committee stage. k9 L. S. Amery, Thoughts on the Constitution. 2nd ed., London, Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 36. 50 C. J. Hughes, "The Referendum," Parliamentary Affairs. London, The Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, (winter 1957-58), vol. XI, no. 1, p. lk. i 51 The word "liquor" is used here to denote a l l types of alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine, unless otherwise stated. 52 Ruth E. Spence, Prohibition i n Canada, Toronto, Ontario Branch of the Dominion Alliance, 1920, p. 21. 53 Loc. c i t . 5k Ibid., p. 27. 55 The Dunkin Act, l86k , was secured largely through the efforts of the United Canadian Alliance for the Suppression of the Liquor Traffic, gave the various local p o l i t i c a l divisions authority to prohibit by popular vote, the r e t a i l sale of liquor within their respective areas. 56 Rev. M. A. Garland and J. J. Talman, Pioneer Drinking  Habits and the Rise of Temperance Agitation i n Upper Canada  Prior to I8k0, reprinted from the Ontario Historical Society 1s "Papers and Records," vol. XXVII, 1931, PP. 1-8. See also Appendix II. 57 Spence, op. c i t . , p. 38. Like the later movement for woman's suffrage, temperance societies f i r s t made their appearance in the United States, where similar conditions prevailed. They were organized in Virginia in 1807 and in Massachusetts i n 1820. (Garland and Talman, Pioneer Drinking, p. 11.) 58 Pledge of a temperance society i n New Jersey. The pledge later reduced the intake to one-half pint per day. Garland and Talman, Pioneer Drinking, p. 10. 59 Spence, op. c i t . , p. k6 . 60 Ibid.. p. 61. 61 The connection between the temperance societies, especially the W. C. T. U. and woman's suffrage w i l l be discussed in a later chapter. 170 62 Spence, P r o h i b i t i o n i n Canada, p. 6 6 . 63 I b i d . . p. 78. 6k I b i d . . p. 8 1 . 65 Canada, House of Commons, Jo u r n a l s , 1 8 7 k , p. 1 6 3 . 66 Spence, op. c i t . , p. I l k . 67 Loc. c i t . 68 I b i d . , p. 166. 69 I b i d . , p. 1 2 2 . 70 The v a l i d i t y of the Act was upheld i n R u s s e l l vs. Reg., 1881-82; (7 A. C. 829) and i n s e v e r a l cases s i n c e , the l a t e s t of which was Attorney-General f o r Ontario vs. Canada Temperance  Federation. 19k6; (A. C. 193). 71 Among whom were Messrs. Jamieson and Wood. (Spence, op. c i t . . pp. 13k-8.) 72 I b i d . . p. 1 5 7 . 73 This r e s o l u t i o n was adopted by the Dominion A l l i a n c e i n 1 8 8 8 . (Spence. P r o h i b i t i o n i n Canada, p. 1 5 3 . ) 7k I b i d . , pp. 178-9. 75 I b i d . . pp. 192-k. 76 Announced i n The Canada Gazette. Sept. 3 , 1 8 9 8 , v o l . XXXII, no. 10, p. k l 8 , "Are you i n favour of the passing o f an Act p r o h i b i t i n g the i m p o r t a t i o n , manufacture or sale of s p i r i t s , wine, a l e , c i d e r and a l l other a l c o h o l i c l i q u o r s f o r use as beverage?" (The Canada Gazette, Nov. 5 , I 8 9 8 , v o l . XXXII, no. 19, pp. 8kk-5.) 77 R e s u l t s of the P l e b i s c i t e : Place A f f i r m a t i v e Negative Vancouver 933 9k& Yale & Cowichan 1 ,512 1 ,359 Burrard 1 ,137 696 TOTAL B r i t i s h Columbia 5 , 7 3 1 k , 7 3 6 (Taken from The Canada Gazette, Nov. 5 , I 8 9 8 , v o l . XXXII, No. 19 , p. 8kk; Nov. 26 , I 8 9 8 , v o l . XXXII, no. 22 , p. 982; Jan. 7 , 1899, v o l . XXXII, no. 2 8 , p. 127k.) 78 L e t t e r from the Honourable W i l f r i d L a u r i e r to Mr. J . S. Spence, March k, 1 8 9 9 . Quoted i n Spence, op. c i t . , p. 2 k 8 . 171 79 The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], February 3, 1909. 80 See Appendix I. 81 Mr. ¥. H. Higgins, Vancouver, one of the B.C. Local Option League's delegates to Premier McBride of February, 1909, spoke of the d i f f i c u l t y of operating a lumber camp as his men drank at a nearby saloon from Saturday to Sunday night and were not able to work un t i l Tuesday. (The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], February 3, 1909.) 82 Ibid. 83 "Liquor License Regulation Act, 1891." (B.C. Statutes. I 8 9 1 , Chap. 21, sec. k.) It provided that a l l r e t a i l outlets of liquor be closed from 11 p.m. Saturday u n t i l 1 p.m. Monday. 8k Ibid., sec. 5>. Neither sec. Ij. or 5 applied to hotels and restaurants which could supply liquor with meals. 85 Spence, Prohibition in Canada, p. k£9. 86 Ibid.. p. k60. E. B. Morgan was elected president and Dr. Daniel Spencer was elected superintendent. 87 The Provincial Vintner's Association of B.C. It was incorporated i n 1903. 88 Paper 1$V°9 of the McBride Collection in the Provincial Archives, Victoria, B.C. It was signed by Lloyd A. Manly, President and H. H. Maloney, Acting Secretary. 89 The exact total of 9,k73 is given i n Spence, op. c i t . . p. I{.62. The News-Advertiser [Vancouver] of February 3, 1909 gives somewhat higher figures; 10,000 signatures representing f u l l y qualified voters and 2Jj>,000 signatures which had been presented to Members of the Legislative Assembly from their constituencies and were not f u l l y qualified. 90 "The only reason why the Lieutenant-Governor has been asked to assent to a dissolution is that his advisors desire to submit to the people at the earliest possible day a policy of railway construction." Richard McBride as quoted in the Colonist [Victoria], October 20, 1909. 91 Letter 800/09 of the McBride collection, McBride to Rev. S. D. Chown, D. D., September 7, 1909. The decision to^hold the plebiscite and general election was not publicly announced u n t i l Oct. 19, 1909. See also Appendix II. 92 The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], March 6, 1909. 93 Ibid. 172 9k L e t t e r 329/09 of McBride's p r i v a t e s e c r e t a r y to Dr. John Madden of Oregon, A p r i l 1 6 , 1 9 0 9 . 95 L e t t e r 265/09 o f E. B. Morgan to McBride, May 1 8 , 1 9 0 9 . 96 L e t t e r 265/09 o f E. B . Morgan to McBride, June 1, 1 9 0 9 . 97 A Vancouver newspaper, The Province, had sent McBride the f o l l o w i n g telegram on J u l y 1 2 : "Reported here that P l e b i s c i t e on temperance question w i l l be taken i n November, Please l e t us know regarding i t . " To which McBride r e p l i e d : "No foundation f o r r e p o r t . Government had made no announcement." (Telegram 7 2 k / 0 9 , McBride from The Province, J u l y 1 2 , 1909 and The Province from McBride, J u l y 12, 1 9 0 9 . ) 98 L e t t e r 265/09 of Morgan and Spencer t o McBride, J u l y 1 7 , 1909. 99 L e t t e r 265/09 of McBride to Morgan and Spencer, J u l y 2 0 , 1 9 0 9 . 100 "McBride also s t a t e d t h a t a p l e b i s c i t e upon the question of l o c a l o p t i o n would be taken at the same time as the e l e c t i o n . " (The C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , October 2 0 , 1 9 0 9 . ) McBride had no s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y to c a l l f o r a p l e b i s c i t e vote. The p u b l i c n o t i c e , which appeared i n the newspapers on November l k and l a t e r s t a t e d that the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council had decided to h o l d a p l e b i s c i t e on the question of l o c a l o p t i o n , does not quote an o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l number as i t s a u t h o r i t y : "To P r o v i n c i a l E l e c t o r s : Notice i s hereby given f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n o f v o t e r s , t h a t the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l has determined that the h o l d i n g of a general e l e c t i o n o f f e r s a favourable o p p o r t u n i t y to o b t a i n the views of e l e c t o r s on the question of L o c a l Option. For such purposes a vote w i l l be taken on the 2 5 t h of November i n s t a n t , at the same time as the vote f o r the e l e c t i o n of candidates to the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. Henry Esson Young, P r o v i n c i a l S e c r e t a r y . " (The C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , November l k , 1 9 0 9 . ) 101 L e t t e r 999/09 of Stevens to McBride, October 21, 1 9 0 9 , and L e t t e r 9 9 9 / 0 9 of McBride to Stevens, October 2 5 , 1 9 0 9 . 102 L e t t e r 265/09 o f Spencer to McBride, October 2 9 , 1 9 0 9 . 103 L e t t e r 265/09 of McBride to Spencer, November 1 , 1909. 173 10k The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], November 2k, 1909. 105 Attorney-General William J. Bowser. He replaced McBride as Premier In 1915. "I have received quite a number of letters from various parts of the country giving the illustrations of the manner In which the local option effort is being treated by strong party politicians, and I am induced to write to you and to ask the favor of a clear and unmistakable statement anent. this question by you in public speeches. Liquor men you meet at various places at meals report conversations, which I do not believe took place. . . and i f I may suggest to you to make the statement: that you are anxious that the people should have the right of the settlement of this question and that i t should be eliminated from politics altogether." (Letter 190/09 of Sepncer to McBride, November 18, 1909.) McBride replied by telegram that he had made the requested statement. (Telegram 190/09 of McBride to Spencer, November 22, 1909.) 106 The Province [Vancouver], November 3, 1909. 107 The News Advertiser [Vancouver], November 23, 1909. 108 "The government has decided to leave the question to the people. The people are the best judges and should decide whether they wish us to introduce such legislation." Bowser speaking at an election r a l l y at Kamloops, on November 2, 1909. (The Province [Vancouver], November 3, 1909.) "The Liberal party as a party have (sic) taken no stand upon the question of local option, though the question has been discussed among individual members of the party. They held that i t was a question for each l o c a l i t y to decide for i t s e l f . We shall put no pressure upon any constituencies one way or the other." John Oliver, Liberal candidate and later Premier. (World [Vancouver], October 26, 1909.) 109 Peter Robert Hunt, The P o l i t i c a l Career of Sir Richard  McBride. unpublished Master's thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver 110 These charges appeared i n an advertisement entitled "Local Option Reviewed" in The Province [Vancouver], November 13, 1909. 111 Copies of this pledge were forwarded to a l l the candidates. The text of the pledge appeared as an editorial in the World [Vancouver], October 21, 1909. 112 Rev. William Stevenson. 113 World [Vancouver], November 23, 1909. 174 Ilk World [Vancouver], November 30, 1909. 115 World [Vancouver], November 26, 1909. See also Appendix V. 116 The results appeared in the World [Vancouver], January 20, 1910. See also Appendix VI. There is no extant o f f i c i a l record of the plebiscitory vote. The Journals of 1910 show the results of the general election, but make no mention of the plebiscite. The Provincial Secretary's Office at Victoria, B.C. has no record of the plebiscite; neither the order-in-council authorizing i t nor the results. 117 "With the exception of the Skeena and the adjustment of two other places, we have reached the final result of the local option vote. By enclosed paper, you w i l l see the f u l l count. I ask your kind attention to the places marked. In addition to these figures, I have a large number of letters and declarations concerning places at which a shortage of the local option ballot and others were extreme irregularities. It w i l l be necessary that we should lay these before you and present to you reasons for the deficiency of the 500 votes as per the Government's demand upon us. . . ." (Letter 292/10 of Spencer to McBride, January 25, 1910.) 118 World [Vancouver], January 2k, 1910. 119 Spencer even obtained half-fare rates to Victoria for members of the convention. Statistics as to how many actually attended are not available. - 120 Letter 292/10 of Spencer and Morgan to McBride, January 31, 1910. A clerk replied that he would place the letter before McBride. If McBride himself replied, the letter has not survived, 121 Paper 292/10 Spencer to McBride, February 10, 1910. Except where quotation marks are shown, the resolution has been shortened by the author. See also Appendix VII. 122 Letter 292/10 of McBride to Spencer, February lk, 1910. 123 Parker Williams, a Socialist, represented the Newcastle riding. 12k The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], January 2k, 1910. 125 Ibid. 126 Mr. Williams had conferred with Dr. Spencer on this question and he had the same impression, i.e., that the local option law would apply only to municipalities; nor had they ever been corrected-. (The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], January 2k, 1910.) 175 127 George A l b e r t McQuire, D. D. S., a Conservative, represented a Vancouver r i d i n g . 128 The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], January 29, 1910. 129 I b i d . 130 L e t t e r 292/10 of Spencer t o McBride, June 1, 1910. 131 McBride had no a u t h o r i t y to h o l d a p l e b i s c i t e on l o c a l o p t i o n . There was i n 1909 no general s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n f o r p l e b i s c i t e s , nor any s p e c i f i c ones f o r the l i q u o r i s s u e . McBride*s d e c i s i o n to h o l d the p l e b i s c i t e was t h e r e f o r e an executive a c t i o n , without l e g a l foundation. (Prom an i n t e r v i e w on June 22, 1956, w i t h Mr. McDiarmid, s o l i c i t o r w i t h the Attorney-General's Department, V i c t o r i a , B.C.) 132 The P r o v i n c i a l Secretary's o f f i c e has no record o f an o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l a u t h o r i z i n g a p l e b i s c i t e ; nor has the Chief E l e c t o r a l O f f i c e r ' s o f f i c e any re c o r d of the p l e b i s c i t o r y vote. 133 American women were the f i r s t t o form o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h the sole purpose of extending the f r a n c h i s e to women. They appeared f i r s t i n I8I4.O. (The N a t i o n a l American Woman Suffrage A s s o c i a t i o n , V i c t o r y : How Women Won I t . A Centennial Symposium  l8kQ-19k0. New York, H. W. Wilson , 19k0, pp. 1-13.) Th e i r B r i t i s h counterparts appeared f i r s t i n 1865. ( E . S y l v i a Pankhurst, The S u f f r a g e t t e Movement: An Intimate Account o f  Persons and I d e a l s . London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1931, PP. 30-^2.) T h e i r Canadian counterparts d i d not appear u n t i l a generation l a t e r . 13k "The p e t i t i o n o f the undersigned r e s i d e n t s o f B r i t i s h Columbia, humbly sheweth, that your P e t i t i o n e r s b e l i e v e i t would conduce to the best i n t e r e s t s o f the Province i f Women were admitted t o the p o l i t i c a l f r a n c h i s e . Your P e t i t i o n e r s , t h e r e f o r e , humbly pray t h a t your Honourable Body w i l l , during the present Session, so amend the Franchise Act as to enable women, being B r i t i s h subjects o f l e g a l age, to vote at any e l e c t i o n of Members f o r your Honourable Assembly." (B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. S e s s i o n a l Papers, v o l . XIV, 1885, p. 323.) This p e t i t i o n was organized by the V i c t o r i a W. C. T. U. though not presented on b e h a l f of i t . I t was supported by s i m i l a r p e t i t i o n s from W e l l i n g t o n , Comox, Sumas and C h i l l i w a c k , Maple Ridge. 135 Ruth Spence, P r o h i b i t i o n i n Canada, Toronto, The Ontario Branch o f the Dominion A l l i a n c e , 1920, p. 68. 136 Catherine Cleverdon, The Woman Suffrage Movement i n Canada, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1950, p. 87. 176 137 Cleverdon, Woman Suffrage, p. 86. 138 This argument was to he used by every Government faced with a suffrage petition u n t i l 1916, when the suffrage referendum of that year ended the agitation. " . . . because the desire i s not general among the women" were the words used by Premier McBride when he rejected the claims of the suffragists' petitions in 1911. (Elsie Gregory MacGill, My Mother the Judge: A  Biography of Judge Helen Gregory MacGili, Toronto, Ryerson Press, 1955.) 139 The one i n 1899 almost succeeded, being defeated on motion for second reading by 17-15. (B.C. Legislative Assembly, Journals, 1899, vol. XXVIII, p. 7k.) lkO Cleverdon, op. c i t . , p. 88. l k l B i l l No. 7 - Franchise to Women, 1906. (Journals, 1906, , vol. XXXV, p. v.) B i l l No. 2k - Franchise to Women, 1909, * (Journals. 1909, vol. XXXVIII, p. vi.) ' lk2 Cleverdon, op. c i t . , p. 89. Ik3 Mrs. Gordon Grant, one of the pioneers of women's suffrage in B.C. and f i r s t president of the Victoria P o l i t i c a l Equality League, went to Vancouver to help organize i t s p o l i t i c a l equality league. (Ibid., p. 89.) lkk Mrs. C. R. Townley, Points in the Laws of British Columbia  Regarding the Legal Status of Women, issued by the Vancouver Branch of the B.C. P o l i t i c a l Equality League, n.d., p. 2.) Ik5 Ibid., p. k. The "Married Women's Property Act, : : 1887, c. 20," enabled a married woman to own and s e l l property as though a femme sole; but the "Dower Act, c. 63, Revised Statutes of B.C. 1897," [Imperial: 3 & k William IV, c. 105"] gave a married woman no automatic claim to dower as her husband could w i l l i t away from her, or in his lifetime dispose of i t without her consent. Ik6 There i s a f u l l description of these cases on pp. 127-8 of Elsie MacGill's My Mother the Judge. Ik7 Townley, op. c i t . , p. 8. Ik8 That i s , without f i r s t having to petition the courts, the only recourse then open. Ik9 Townley, op. c i t . , p. 9 . 150 Loc. c i t . 177 l£l (Name of newspaper not given.) The quotation concluded: ". . . and no doubt many of the ladies who were so pleased when the b i l l received i t s second reading, w i l l be wondering how they have been euchred out of what they have been considering practically won." (Townley, Points in the Laws Regarding Status  of Women, p. 9.) 1^ 2 Ibid.. p. 10. "By 1911 women were voting in New Zealand, Australia, Tasmania, the Scandinavian countries, and the American states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Washington and California. . . . In each of these areas woman suffrage had been followed quickly by changes i n social laws; by statutes that provided for equal rights of guardianship between parents, that raised the age of marriage, protected the marriage survivor from poverty by w i l l of the deceased spouse, enforced maintenance, prevented destitution. Here was prima facie evidence that only when women could threaten or cajole with the power of the ballot could they expect immediate sweeping reforms, for elsewhere such legislation lagged." (MacGill, My Mother the Judge, pp. 122-3.) 1^ 3 Vancouver Women's Building, Limited, Yearbook, 1922, Vancouver, B.C., Vancouver Women's Building, Limited, 1923, p. 22. 1?% "The women of Vancouver are now prepared to advance in ordered ranks upon the strongholds of conservatism to demand the ballot. Working quietly, but with commendable despatch, the machinery was got in order, and the city possesses an organized society for the advancement of women's p o l i t i c a l status" was the description given of this League by the World, [Vancouver], February 1911. 155 Townley, op. c i t . , p. 1. 156 Ibid., p. 16. 157 Ibid., p. 17. 158 Loc. c i t . 159 The Vancouver Sun, March 19, 1913. 160 The regular rejection of their claims did not seem to have disturbed the suffragists, A description appearing i n the Vancouver Sun, March 19, 1913, describes their optimistic reaction to McBride's rejection of the suffrage petitioners of 1912: "The members of the League are i n no wise discouraged by their failure to gain p o l i t i c a l recognition during the session. They note with gratification the immense change in public opinion which is taking place, and which i s particularly noticeable i n the altered attitude of many prominent men and women who l i e beneath the demand for suffrage on the part of women." (Women's Special Edition, The Vancouver Sun. March 19, 1913.) 178 161 The Province [Vancouver], October 2 3 , 1 9 3 7 . Women's suffrage b i l l s introduced, by private members, i n 1 9 0 9 , 1913 and 191k were negatived on second reading by Conservative members. (B.C. Journals. 1 9 0 9 , p. 1 2 8 ; 1 9 1 3 , p. 115'; 191k , p. 8 3 . ) 162 Among whom was Nellie McClung, a well-known f i c t i o n writer. Her connection with the suffrage movement is described later in this paper. See note l 6 k . 163 Included i n this group were: Alfred E. Bull, then police court magistrate and Judge of the Juvenile Court; Judge Grant; and barristers Arthur Creagh, Alex Henderson, Fred Lucas, J. Stuart Jamieson. (MacGill, My Mother the Judge, p.. 1 2 6 . ) l 6 k Nellie McCiung was the chief organizer of the suffrage campaigns in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. She appeared bri e f l y i n Vancouver to attend a Prohibition convention in August, 1 9 1 5 , and also spoke at public meetings on behalf of women's suffrage. Later she toured several American states for almost two years for the double cause of female suffrage and prohibition. In the 1 9 2 0 's she was a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and was one of the appellants in the Persons' Case in which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that women were eligible to sit i n the Canadian Senate. 165 Senator Cottrell of Washington, speaking at the f i r s t convention of the B.C. P o l i t i c a l Equality League and reported in the World [Vancouver], May 6 , 1 9 0 9 . 166 "There is something very alarming in the attitude of the Militant Suffragettes. They are exceeding a l l bounds, and are most surely alienating any existing sympathy with their cause. It w i l l take but one greater outrage than any that has passed to utterly rout and extinguish a movement which many educated, intellectual and broadminded anti-militant women have at heart." (The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], March 9 , 1 9 1 3 . ) 167 The editor-in-charge was Helen MacGill. Twenty societies representing k5>00 clubwomen of Vancouver contributed to this paper. It went through two editions which sold at five cents per copy, the profits being used for campaign expenses. 168 This paper did much to alter the attitude expressed in the following quotation: "The proceeding at that time (here, the 1911 delegation of suffragists to Victoria) was generally regarded as one of enormity on the part of their sex and treated with levity due to the whim of women, who apparently, unmindful of their womanly duties, were crying like spoilt children for the moon." (Editorial entitled: "Rights of Women Restored by Election," The Vancouver Sun, September 1 5 , 1 9 1 6 . ) 179 169 It was to be a bi-weekly edition for the f i r s t six months and then to become a weekly i f funds permitted. (The News- Advertiser [Vancouver], March 21, 1 9 1 3 . ) I could find no further trace of "The Pioneer" and do not know i f i t achieved its aim. 170 Cleverdon, Woman Suffrage, pp. 91-2. 171 The News Advertiser [Vancouver], March 30, 1913. 172 "For this purpose the Evening Work Committee of the Pioneer P o l i t i c a l Equality League (a league formed for the purpose of obtaining the parliamentary vote on the same terms as i t i s now or may be granted to men) have started a series of public meetings for the purpose of bringing before the public the many reasons why women should be allowed to vote. As a further means of keeping up public interest i n the women's movement, the members of the committee are publishing a paper that w i l l deal with a l l women's p o l i t i c a l , industrial and educational interests. An office has also been rented for a headquarters, from which to carry on this campaign. Public meetings are held every Wednesday at the Labor Temple at 8 p.m., admission free. A l l are welcome." (The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], March 3 0 , 1913.) 173 MacGill, My Mother the Judge, p. 1I4.6. 17I4. Cleverdon, op. c i t . , p. 9 3 . 175 MacGill, op. c i t . , p. II4.7. 176 Manitoba, January 28, 1916. Alberta, April 19, 1 9 1 6 . Saskatchewan, March lk, 1916. (Cleverdon, op. c i t . , pp. 6k-82.) 177 Ibid., pp. 6 0 - 6 5 . 178 The Canadian Parliamentary Guide. 191k, Ottawa, The Mortimer Company Ltd., Printers, 191k, p. 5 0 1 . 179 MacGill, op. c i t . , p. I k 8 . 180 Ibid.. pp. I k 7 - k 8 . 181 B.C. Legislative Assembly, Journals, 1916, vol. XLV, p. 139. 182 At a by-election held' i n Vancouver on March k, 1 9 1 6 , Malcolm A. MacDonald, a Liberal, defeated Hon. Charles E. Tisdall, Minister of Public Works. At a by-election held in Victoria on the next day, the Liberal party leader, Harlem Carey Brewster defeated another cabinet minister, Hon. A. C. Flumerfelt, Minister of Finance. (The Canadian Parliamentary  Guide, 1916, pp. k05-10.) It was after these by-elections, 180 which c l e a r l y r e vealed that the t i d e was running against the Conservative P a r t y , that Bowser introduced h i s suffrage referendum, i . e . on May 23, e i g h t days before the s e s s i o n prorogued. (B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, Jo u r n a l s , pp. 151-176.) Bowser's own explanation of the referendum was somewhat i n e p t : "Since the L e g i s l a t u r e commenced, however, he had f e l t t h a t since the great question of p r o h i b i t i o n was coming before the people, a referendum should be taken at the same time on the important issue o f the f r a n c h i s e . " "Bowser, speaking at an e l e c t i o n r a l l y at the Empress Theatre, Vancouver, on September 1, 1916, as r e p o r t e d i n The Mews-Advertiser [Vancouver], September 2, 1916.) 183 M a c G i l l , My Mother the Judge, p. IJ4.9. "The s u f f r a g i s t s o f B.C. had expected that they would g a i n the vote through the u s u a l method - parliamentary a c t i o n - and were organized f o r that purpose onl y . When the referendum was given i t meant that the women had a greater t a s k on hand than they had expected, f o r t h i s method would take much gre a t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n as t h i s meant f a r more d e t a i l to work out." (Report of Mrs. J . A. C l a r k , Chairman of the C i t y C e n t r a l Suffrage Referendum A s s o c i a t i o n e n t i t l e d "Women are now on e q u a l i t y w i t h men," i n The Mews- Ad v e r t i s er [Vancouver], September 17, 1916.) Miss Helen G u t t r i d g e , Secretary o f the Pioneer P o l i t i c a l E q u a l i t y League of Vancouver, was one of the few s u f f r a g i s t s who approved of the referendum: "We d i d not ask f o r a referendum on women's su f f r a g e , but since t h a t has been given us we have admitted that a f t e r a l l i t i s probably the best t h i n g f o r us, because the referendum has taken the question of women's suffrage e n t i r e l y out of p o l i t i c s a l t o g e t h e r . I t has nothing to do w i t h e i t h e r p a r t y and we t h i n k t h a t i t i s more d e s i r a b l e f o r us to r e c e i v e our suffrage i n that way, without reference t o e i t h e r p a r t y . " (The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], September 2, 1916.) However, the reason she gave was o n l y t h e o r e t i c a l l y v a l i d , as both p a r t i e s openly discussed the referendum during the campaign, i n f a c t , t r e a t i n g i t l i k e any other p o l i t i c a l Issue. (See pp. - o f t h i s chapter. 181+ M a c G i l l , op. c i t . . p. 1I4.9. 185 "An Act to Amend the ' P r o v i n c i a l E l e c t i o n s Act,'" B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, Jo u r n a l s . v o l . XLV, pp. 150-76. 186 "An Act t o enable S o l d i e r s s e r v i n g i n the Present War to e x e r c i s e t h e i r E l e c t o r a l Franchise"; "An Act f o r r e f e r r i n g to the E l e c t o r s the Questions of the Expediency of suppressing the Liquor T r a f f i c i n B r i t i s h Columbia by p r o h i b i t i n g P r o v i n c i a l Transactions i n L i q u o r , and of the Extension of the E l e c t o r a l Franchise to Women"; "An Act to extend the E l e c t o r a l Franchise to Women." (B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, J o u r n a l s , v o l . XLV, pp. 150-76. 181 187 According to The Vancouver Sun. August lk, 1916, the suffragists' campaign was in the hands of volunteers, as they had no appropriation for advertisements, no campaign fund and no paid organizer. 188 MacGill, My Mother the Judge, pp. l k 9 - 5 0 . Cleverdon, Woman Suffrage, pp. 98-9. 189 Brewster, speaking at an election r a l l y at the Old Victoria Theatre, July 11, 1916, as quoted i n the Times [Victoria], July 12, 1916. 190 This was an abrupt volte-face on the part of the Conservatives as prior to this referendum they were implacably opposed to the extension of the franchise to women. It was true of the western provinces, from Ontario to B.C. that the Liberal Party favoured woman suffrage, while the Conservatives opposed i t . 191 The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], September ll£, 1916. 192 Ibid. Dr. McGuire, a Conservative candidate for the Vancouver riding further elucidated his party's viewpoint on the suffrage issue: ". . .As soon as i t (Conservative Government) was convinced that a question would be for the good of the province i t did i t s utmost to put i t on the statute books at the earliest possible moment. This was what had been done with the woman suffrage question." (Ibid., August I4., 1916.) 193 In the bitter struggle of the election and the controversy aroused by the prohibition issue, i t was d i f f i c u l t to keep the public aware of the suffrage campaign. "In spite of the valiant efforts of the women, i t would be erroneous to infer that woman suffrage was more than a minor issue in the campaign as a whole." (Cleverdon, op. c i t . , p. 99.) In an editorial entitled "Votes for Women," The Vancouver Sun asked the electorate not to forget the suffrage question: "The attention of the people is violently attracted to other issues. But see how important this one i s . . ." (The Vancouver Sun. September lk, 1916.) 19k The Colonist [Victoria], a Conservative newspaper, was one notable exception. In an editorial entitled "Women and the Ballot," i t took the ladies to task, charging them with being anti-Conservative and chiding them for regarding the suffrage referendum as a p o l i t i c a l issue, and reminding them that the referendum was a deliberate attempt to remove the issue from p o l i t i c s . (The Colonist [Victoria], July 11, 1916.) 195 The News Advertiser [Vancouver], September 1, 1916. 196 Nellie McClung, addressing a suffrage r a l l y i n Vancouver on August 29, 1915, as reported in the World [Vancouver], August 30, 1915. 182 197 World [Vancouver], August 30, 1911?. There were many more arguments, pro and con, on t h i s i s s u e . Only the most popular ones were given here. 198 The C i v i l i a n vote f o r Woman Suffrage was k 3 , 6 l 9 and against 1 8 , 6 0 k ; the S o l d i e r s ' vote stood 8 , 2 7 3 and 6 , 0 0 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . (Canadian Annual Review ( 1 9 1 6 ) , p. 7 8 1 . ) Mrs. Ralph (Mary E l l e n ) Smith was the f i r s t woman to win a seat i n the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly of B.C. She won a b y - e l e c t i o n i n January, 1 9 1 8 , which was n e c e s s i t a t e d by her husband's death. She was made M i n i s t e r Without P o r t f o l i o by Premier O l i v e r i n 1 9 2 1 . (Cleverdon, Woman Suff r a g e , p. 1 0 1 . ) "Minimum Wage f o r Women A c t , " (B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, J o u r n a l s , v o l . XLVII, p. 2 2 2 . ) 199 See pages - o f t h i s chapter. 200 With t h i s important d i f f e r e n c e , the 1909 p l e b i s c i t e was an advisory one, whereas the 1916 p l e b i s c i t e was a referendum. 201 An Act r e s p e c t i n g l i q u o r l i c e n c e s and the t r a f f i c i n i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r s . Statutes of B.C.. 1910, chap. 3 0 . 202 Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 1 0 , p. 7 6 9 . 203 The Liquor Act. 1910. P t . I . For purposes of es t i m a t i n g t h i s p r o p o r t i o n , wives and c h i l d r e n , over 21 years o f age, were i n c l u d e d . 20k I b i d . , p t s . 2 , 3 , k, Sec. 5 - 7 k . 205 However, during these r e s t r i c t e d hours, bona f i d e t r a v e l l e r s could have l i q u o r served w i t h t h e i r meals. 206 An Act to amend the "Municipal Clauses A c t , " chap. 3 7 . (Municipal Clause Act Amendment Act, 1 9 1 1 . ) 207 Saloon l i c e n s e s were not permitted i n unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s or along l i n e s of r a i l w a y c o n s t r u c t i o n . (Canadian  Annual Review. 1 9 1 2 , p. 5 9 5 . ) 208 An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act. Statutes o f B.C., 1 9 1 3 , chap. k 0 . 209 Canadian Annual Review, 1 9 1 3 , p. 6 7 6 . 210 Revised Statutes of B.C., 1 9 1 1 , chap. 19 and 3 9 . 211 Canadian Annual Review, 1 9 1 5 , P. 7 3 2 . 2 1 2 I b i d - . P. 7 3 3 . 213 I b i d . , p. 7 3 7 . 183 21k The 300 delegates of the t h i r d annual convention of the B.C. Local Option League meeting on February 16, 1911 i n Vancouver, accepted unanimously the r e s o l u t i o n t h a t the campaign continue u n t i l "absolute P r o h i b i t i o n was obtained." (World [Vancouver], February 17, 1911.) The Canada Temperance Act under which m u n i c i p a l i t i e s could have l o c a l o p t i o n had become unpopular w i t h many temperance people who considered the machinery s u p p l i e d to be inadequate to enforce the law. (World [Vancouver], February 11, 1911.) 215 Canadian Annual Review. 1912, p. 595. 21$' I b i d . 1912 was an e l e c t i o n year and Brewster, leader o f the L i b e r a l Party adopted the temperance s o c i e t i e s ' double plank of l o c a l o p t i o n and women's suf f r a g e i n the hope of a t t r a c t i n g votes away from the extremely popular Conservative a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . But the e l e c t o r a t e s t i l l p r e f e r r e d the Conservatives and not one L i b e r a l a t t a i n e d a seat. 217 The Methodist, P r e s b y t e r i a n and M e t r o p o l i t a n churches had been e a r l y and a c t i v e supporters o f p r o h i b i t i o n . 218 Canadian Annual Review, 1917, p. 733. 219 I b i d . 220 I t was organized by the B.C. Local Option League and h e l d i n Vancouver and attended by over 1,000 delegates r e p r e s e n t i n g every d i s t r i c t i n B.C. (The Vancouver Sun, August 23, 1915.) 221 The meeting took place on August k and the proceedings were reported i n the World, August 11, 1915. 222 McBride to Stevenson, August 2k, 1915. For f u l l t e x t see Appendix V I I I . . 223 ". . . and the h i s t o r y o f mere p l e b i s c i t e s i n Canada and B.C. has not been such as to make temperance people waste much time and money i n securing a r e p e t i t i o n o f them. In f a c t , a s t r a i g h t p l e b i s c i t e , we t h i n k , would o n l y cause 'resentment.'" (The World, [Vancouver], August 2k, 1915.) The i r r e g u l a r i t i e s of the 1909 p l e b i s c i t e were also r e c a l l e d : "Moreover, the p u r e l y mechanical d i f f i c u l t i e s are important. Temperance workers have never q u i t e f o r g i v e n the government f o r the c o n d i t i o n s attending the vote on the l o c a l o p t i o n b i l l i n 1910 ( s i c ) , x^hen a b a l l o t f o r the l o c a l o p t i o n vote was i s s u e d only on the request of the v o t e r ; and r e t u r n i n g o f f i c e r s , whether under i n s t r u c t i o n s or not, were o f t e n r e l u c t a n t even to hand out a b a l l o t on request. A r e p e t i t i o n of such a c o n d i t i o n would arouse deep resentment among temperance people." (World [Vancouver], August 27, 19l5«) 184 22k "Doubtless, S i r Richard w i l l seek to j u s t i f y t h i s ( p l e b i s c i t e ) on the ground t h a t h i s p a r t y cannot act i n such a v i t a l matter without the d i r e c t assent of the people. But he omits to st a t e — or perhaps the omission i s the f a u l t of the government newspapers — the date on which the referendum ( s i c ) w i l l be h e l d . This i s the a l l - i m p o r t a n t p o i n t . I f there i s to be no vote taken f o r s i x months the value o f the government's concession w i l l be n e u t r a l i z e d . " (World [Vancouver], August 23, 1915.) 225 For f u l l t e x t see Appendix X V I I I . 226 Ven. Archdeacon L l o y d , P r i n c i p a l o f Emmanuel D i v i n i t y College, Saskatoon, and President o f the Dominion A l l i a n c e , who had been i n v i t e d as p r i n c i p a l speaker to the Convention. (The Vancouver Sun. August 27, 1915.) N e l l i e McClung. had al s o been i n v i t e d to address the Convention and other p u b l i c meetings. She was an extremely popular speaker and 5,GOO attended one meeting w h i l e hundreds more were turned away as there was no more space a v a i l a b l e . (World [Vancouver], August 2k, 1915. Other p u b l i c meetings re p r o h i b i t i o n h e l d at t h a t time were s i m i l a r l y attended t o c a p a c i t y . 227 T y p i c a l of the r e s o l u t i o n s passed was the f o l l o w i n g : ". . . owing to the magnitude o f the i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d , t h i s meeting i s opposed t o any emergency l e g i s l a t i o n tending to P r o h i b i t i o n , even during the continuance of the War, without a general referendum t o the people of t h i s Province." (Canadian  Annual Review. 1915, pp. 732-3.) 228 This d e l e g a t i o n was headed by Colonel E. G. P r i o r of V i c t o r i a and J . J . S h a l l c r o s s , Vancouver, and claimed t o represent the l a r g e s t f i n a n c i a l and business i n t e r e s t s i n the Province. ( I b i d . , 1915, p. 733.) 229 Loc. c i t . 230 A la r g e P r o h i b i t i o n d e l e g a t i o n waited on McBride on September lt\. and one from the Merchants P r o t e c t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n waited on him on October k. See Appendix IX. 231 Jonathan Rogers o f the People's P r o h i b i t i o n Movement, t i r e d o f McBride's noncommittal a t t i t u d e had w r i t t e n him the f o l l o w i n g warning l e t t e r : ". . . In order t o a l l a y t h e i r ( f o l l o w e r s ' ) s u s p i c i o n s and to assure them that we have been usi n g every endeavour to secure a statement o f the Government's i n t e n t i o n , we must very soon now p u b l i s h our correspondence. This w i l l not be done w i t h any h o s t i l e i n t e n t but simply to l e t the p u b l i c know the p o s i t i o n of a f f a i r s . " (Rogers to McBride, October 30, 1915.) McBride's r e a c t i o n to t h i s l e t t e r was to announce the date of the p l e b i s c i t e . For f u l l t e x t of h i s l e t t e r to Rogers see Appendix X, L e t t e r 72/15. 185 232 Canadian Annual Review. 1915, p. 73k. 233 Ibid.. 1917, p. 735. 23k Loc. c i t . 235 McBride resigned the Premiership and was l a t e r appointed Agent-General for B.C. i n London, He was replaced by Attorney-General William Bowser. 236 Bowser had other pressing issues as well to s e t t l e , namely, the problem of railway construction and debts and charges of mishandling of funds of same. 237 Canadian Annual Review, 1916, p. 755. 238 T i s d a l l was defeated by the L i b e r a l candidate by 9,590 votes to 5,k62. (Loc. c i t . ) 239 Loc. c i t . Q 2k0 He was defeated by Brewster, Leader of the L i b e r a l Party by 4,812 votes to 2,kl6. 2kl B.C. Journals, 1916, v o l . XLV, p. 3. 2k2 Rev. R. W. Patterson was cheered loud and long when he made the following statement at the Prohibition Convention i n August: "Then arises the question that when we get p r o h i b i t i o n ought we to compensate the l i q u o r men for the investment of t h e i r money. I say no. I c a l l them gamblers and gamblers must take the i r chance. For every man who applies for a l i q u o r license knows he takes the chance of the country going 'dry.' And he gets that hotel license simply as a l i q u o r l i c e n s e . And he knows he does. This system i s not a hotel l i c e n s i n g system, but a l i q u o r l i c e n s i n g system and a l l hotelmen know i t . " (The Vancouver Sun, August 27, 1915.) 2k3 Canadian Annual Review, 1916, p. 767. Though unknown to the public at the time, the Lieutenant-Governor refused to assent to the l i q u o r referendum without Bowser's assurance that should i t pass, the question of compensation would be looked into by an impartial commission: "For your information, and i n order that the matter may be on record, I (Lt.-Governor) beg to say that before assenting to the Proh i b i t i o n Act and Referendum, 1916, I obtained a promise from Mr. Bowser that he would make a statement to parliament upon the introduction of the Act that, i n the event of the Prohibition Act being brought into force, the Government would appoint a commission to inquire into and report upon the question of compensation to be paid to those formerly engaged i n the l i q u o r trade." (Quoted from a confidential memorandum for the executive council, signed by Premier John Oliver, undated and uncatalogued paper i n the Pattullo c o l l e c t i o n , P r o v i n c i a l Archives, B.C.) 186 2l+k Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 1 6 , p. 7 6 8 . 2I4.5 "An Act to enable S o l d i e r s s e r v i n g i n the Present War to exe r c i s e t h e i r E l e c t o r a l F r a nchise," and "An Act f o r r e f e r r i n g to the E l e c t o r s the Questions o f the Expediency o f suppressing the Liquor T r a f f i c i n B r i t i s h Columbia by p r o h i b i t i n g P r o v i n c i a l Transactions i n Li q u o r , and of the Extension of the E l e c t o r a l Franchise to Women." B i l l s 86 and 89 of the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly which r e c e i v e d Royal Assent on May 3 1 , 1 9 1 6 . ( J o u r n a l s . 1 9 1 6 , v o l . XLV, p. 1 7 6 . ) 2i+6 C i t e d from a pamphlet issued by the P r o h i b i t i o n Movement i n the Vancouver C i t y Archives c o l l e c t i o n e n t i t l e d " P r o h i b i t i o n Docket." 2i+7 Advertisement i n The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], September 1, 1 9 1 6 . 21x8 The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], August 11, 1 9 1 6 . 2k9 I b i d . . J u l y 29, 1916. 2^0 The Vancouver Sun announced t h i s p o l i c y on August 31» 1916 . 2^1 The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], September 2 , 1 9 1 6 . 252 Times [ V i c t o r i a ] , September 13, 1 9 1 6 . 253 I b i d . . September 1 2 , 1 9 1 6 . 25I+ "11 . A d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t the l i q u o r t r a f f i c of B r i t i s h Columbia i s at present under the absolute c o n t r o l of the P r o v i n c i a l Government and i s used as a p o l i t i c a l machine. To i n s i s t upon the complete removal o f l i q u o r question from p a r t y p o l i t i c s . A L o c a l Option law f o r the p r o t e c t i o n o f the p u b l i c ; c a r e f u l i n s p e c t i o n of a l l l i q u o r s o f f e r e d f o r s a l e . " (Plank of the L i b e r a l P a r t y f o r the p r o v i n c i a l general e l e c t i o n , 1 9 1 2 . Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 1 2 , p. 6lk.) "Mr. Brewster declared s t r o n g l y f o r . . . t o t a l P r o h i b i t i o n w i t h Local Option as a p r e l i m i n a r y . " (Loc. c i t . ) 255 See Appendix X I I . 256 "Two days before the b y - e l e c t i o n i n t h i s c i t y at a meeting h e l d i n the Orpheum Theatre I t o l d the people of Vancouver t h a t the promise made by my predecessor, S i r R i c h a r d McBride, on the matter o f p r o h i b i t i o n would be c a r r i e d out by me," he s a i d . He had promised that a referendum of the people would be taken and that the government would act upon the wish o f the e l e c t o r a t e as expressed i n t h i s referendum. "And now the L i b e r a l s are cl a i m i n g that my d e c i s i o n to t h i s e f f e c t was a death bed repentance and that i t was not t i l l a f t e r Mr. T i s d a l l had been defeated i n the b y - e l e c t i o n that I 187 made the decision. You people who heard me w i l l bear me out when I repeat that I made a promise before that election . . ." A roar of assent give (sic) instantaneous answer to the Premier 1s words. He had f e l t , he continued, that a question of such importance as this should be referred to the people and he had carried out his promise to place the matter before them." (Premier Bowser speaking at an election r a l l y in Vancouver as reported in The News-Advertiser [Vancouver], September 8 , 1916.) 2^7 Canadian Annual Review. 1917, p^ 826. It also marked the defeat of the "wet" Conservatives and the return to office for the f i r s t time of the "dry" Liberals. Liberals returned 37 M. L. A.'s; Conservatives, 9; and the Socialists, 1. (Canadian  Annual Review. 1916, pp. 7 7 9 - 7 8 0 . ) 258 Loc. c i t . 259 Loc. c i t . 260 Ibid., p. 8 3 1 . 261 Ibid., p. 8 3 3 . 262 Loc. c i t . 263 Report of the Prohibition Commissioner (J. Sclater) for the year ending December 31, 1919, quoted i n Canadian Annual Review, 1920, p. 829. "The Attorney-General (Mr. Parris) stated that in the eight months from March to October, inclusive, doctors in British Columbia had issued 188,120 prescriptions for liquor — one Doctor writing k,000 prescriptions in a month." (Canadian  Annual Review. 1919, p. 7 9 6 . ) 26k Ibid., 1921, p. 876. Later, during the 1921 Liquor plebiscite campaign, Premier Oliver "blamed public sentiment, which, he claimed, had not been strong enough, for not enforcing the prohibition act and maintaining that 86 per cent, of the responsibility was entirely due to the municipalities." (Oliver, quoted in the World [Vancouver], October 6 , 1920.) Only for the lk per cent of the population in unorganized districts was the Provincial Government responsible for enforcing the Act. 265 See Appendix XIII. 266 Canadian Annual Review. 1920, p. 8 2 8 . 267 See Appendix XIII. 268 Canadian Annual Review. 1920, p. 8 2 8 . 269 "B.C. Prohibition Act Amendment Act, 1920." (B.C. Statutes, 1920, chap. 72, sec. 6, 7, 8 , 9 . ) 188 270 "Temperance P l e b i s c i t e A c t . " (B.C. S t a t u t e s . 1920, ch. 93.) 271 Canadian Annual Review. 1921, p. 876. 272 C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , A p r i l 9, 1920. The d e l e g a t i o n claimed that the worst e v i l s of i l l i c i t s ales would disappear i f l i g h t wines and beer sale were permitted. They were al s o alarmed at the growth of drug a d d i c t i o n since the P r o h i b i t i o n Act had been i n f o r c e . 273 B.C. Jo u r n a l s , 1920, v o l . XLIX, pp. 130, 176. 27k C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , A p r i l l k , 1920. 275 "Canada Temperance A c t . " (Revised Statutes of Canada. 1952, chap. 196, sec. 1, Part IV, sec. 153.) 276 B.C. Journals . 1920, v o l . XLIX, p. 250. 277 I b i d . . pp. 250-1. The O l i v e r Government was committed to a f u r t h e r p l e b i s c i t e only at an i n d e f i n i t e date as the R e s o l u t i o n s t a t e d " e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e date." 278 World [Vancouver], October 15, 1920. 279 I b i d . . October 6, 1920. 280 F a r r i s , speaking at a Vancouver C i t y L i b e r a l A s s o c i a t i o n meeting, at which he also h i n t e d that a p r o v i n c i a l general e l e c t i o n would be h e l d i n the near f u t u r e a f t e r the r e s u l t s of the p l e b i s c i t e were known. (The Province [ V a n c o u v e r ] O c t o b e r 18, 1920.) 281 The Vancouver Sun. October 17, 1920. 282 The Convention was h e l d i n Vancouver. 283 Quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], October 2, 1920. 28k L o c c i t . 285 Loc. c i t . 286 Loc. c i t . 287.Canadian Annual Review, 1920, pp. 829-30. 288 The Vancouver Sun. October 13, 1920. 289 I b i d . . October 15, 1920. 290 The Province [Vancouver], October 16, 1920. 189 291 World [Vancouver], October 19, 1920. 292 I b i d . . October 18, 1920. 293 The Province [Vancouver], October 8,1920. 291+ Times [ V i c t o r i a ] , October 9, 1920. 295 Though b r i e f , the League conducted an extensive campaign, using as d i d the P r o h i b i t i o n i s t s , p u b l i c meetings, newspaper a d v e r t i s i n g , pamphets, and door-to-door canvassing. 296 The Vancouver Sun. October 6, 1920. "Every vote f o r P r o h i b i t i o n i s a vote f o r b o o t l e g g i n g " i s the v e r s i o n that appeared i n the C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , October 19, 1920. 297 The Province [Vancouver], October 16, 1920. 298 Loc. c i t . 299 S t a t i s t i c s were quoted to prove t h a t the number of a r r e s t s f o r drunkenness was higher i n 1919 than i t had been before p r o h i b i t i o n was i n s t i t u t e d . 300 The Vancouver Sun. October 13, 1920. 301 The League also maintained that p r o h i b i t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n which attempted to l e g a l l y enforce a moral code on s o c i e t y was an u n j u s t i f i a b l e impingement on the r i g h t s of the i n d i v i d u a l . "The main object of the Moderation League i s t o promote s o b r i e t y , but at the same time h o l d i n v i o l a t e our h e r i t a g e o f l i b e r t y under the B r i t i s h C o n s t i t u t i o n . " ('Back to law and order* advertisement of the Moderation League, appearing i n The Province [Vancouver], October 19, 1920.) 302 Quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], October 16, 1920. 303 The Vancouver Sun. October 18, 1920. 301+ Quoted from a speech d e l i v e r e d at the Convention, September 30, and reported i n the World [Vancouver], October 1, 1920. 305 The Vancouver Sun, October 5, 1920. 306 World [Vancouver], October 15, 1920. 307 The Province [Vancouver], October 5, 1920. 308 I b i d . . October 12, 1920. 309 B.C. Gazette, v o l . LX, no. 52, p. k899. 310 The Province [Vancouver], October 20, 1920. 190 311 Oliver, quoted i n the World [Vancouver], October 21, 1920. The Attorney-General, Farris, was more voluble i n his appraisal of the plebiscitory vote: "I believe the vote today is not intended in any sense as a repudiation of temperance sentiment in the Province, but i s an expression of the belief of the mass of the electors that the best results i n favor of temperance w i l l come from strict regulation and control, rather than from attempted prohibition. To ray mind this vote is a mandate to the Government, not for a return to a 'wet* or a 'wide open' British Columbia, but rather to impose on them a solemn obligation to devise and carry out wise legislation that w i l l in r e a l i t y control and restrict the use of liquor. . . . The vote indicates that public sentiment in the Province i s against the present Act, and explains to a large extent the grave d i f f i c u l t y which the authorities have had in carrying out i t s enforcements." (Quoted in The Vancouver Sun. October 21, 1920.) 312 World [Vancouver], October 21, 1920. 313 W. G. W. Fortune, financial secretary of the People's Prohibition Party, quoted i n The Vancouver Sun. October 21, 1920. 31k Times [Victoria], October 21, 1920. The House actually had another year to run, "but i t was f e l t that Prohibition and other questions required a p o l i t i c a l verdict from the people before they-could be properly handled." (Canadian Annual Review, 1920, p. 830.) 315 The Vancouver Sun, October 21, 1920. 316 Quoted ib i d . . October 2k, 1920. 317 Canadian Annual Review. 1920, p. 830. 318 Ibid., p. 831. 319 Quoted in the World [Vancouver], October 27, 1920. 320 Canadian Annual Review, 1920, p. 832. 321 The Legislative Assembly before dissolution, October 20, 1920: Liberals - 31; Conservatives - 9; Others - 6; vacant - 1. After the provincial general election, December 1, 1920: Liberals - 26; Conservatives - 13; Others - 8. 322 The Province;..[Vancouver] , February 17, 1921. The Conservatives protested that the resolution to petition the Lieutenant-Governor to present a " b i l l embodying a reasonable and moderate policy" was unconstitutional. On this issue the House divided and the Resolution passed 29/lk, with seven Independents voting with the Government and one against, thus defeating Oliver's hopes for dealing with the issue on a non-partisan basis. (Canadian Annual Review, 1921, p. 877.) 191 323 Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 2 1 , p. 8 ? 6 . 32k I b i d . , pp. 8 7 7 - 8 . 325 Loc. c i t . 326 The Province [Vancouver], February 17, 1 9 2 1 . 327 I b i d . . February 2 k , 1 9 2 1 . 328 B. C. Jou r n a l s, 1 9 2 1 , v o l . L, p. l k $ . 329 Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 2 1 , p. 8 7 8 . 330 Herbert Kergin ( L i b e r a l , A t l i n ) , quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], February 2 2 , 1 9 2 1 . 331 Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 2 1 , p. 8 7 8 . 332 Loc. c i t . 333 B.C. Journals. 1 9 2 1 , v o l . L, p. 171. 33k Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 2 1 , p. 8 7 8 . 335 Loc. c i t . 336 I b i d . . p. 8 7 9 . 337 I b i d . . p. 8 8 1 . 338 B.C. Journals» 1 9 2 1 , Second Session, v o l . L I , p. 1 3 7 . "(In the Committee) Resolved. That an humble Address be presented to H i s Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying that a B i l l be submitted to the House amending the 'Government Liquor Act, 1 9 2 1 , ' p r o v i d i n g f o r the sale of beer by the glass i n standard h o t e l s and bona-fide clubs under the c o n t r o l of and by permits or l i c e n c e s i s s u e d by the Liquor C o n t r o l Board; such Act t o come i n t o o p e r a t i o n contingent upon a favourable vote on a referendum; and f o r a referendum t o be taken to determine i f the e l e c t o r s o f the Province are i n favour o f such Act coming i n t o o p e r a t i o n by Proclamation a f t e r the t a k i n g of such referendum." 339 Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 2 1 , p. 8 8 7 . 3k0 I b i d . . 1 9 2 2 , p. 8 5 k . 3 k l Loc. c i t . 3k2 E a r l i e r i n the year (May), the Vancouver C i t y C o u n c i l had proposed t h a t draught beer be permitted i n h o t e l s , but no a c t i o n had been taken by the P r o v i n c i a l Government t o make such a p r o v i s i o n . (Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 2 2 , p. 8 ^ 3 . ) 192 31+3 For f u l l t e x t of the R e s o l u t i o n , see Appendix XIV. The previous June, the House of Commons had passed a B i l l to amend the Canada Temperance Act to a b o l i s h p r i v a t e i m p o r t a t i o n o f l i q u o r , but the Senate had r e j e c t e d the B i l l . Because the Senate a c t i o n came at- the end of the Session when many Senators were not present, the Attorney-General f e l t j u s t i f i e d i n asking f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the is s u e at the next Session. 314|. The L i b e r t y and Moderation Leagues met Premier O l i v e r and members o f h i s Cabinet t o ask for s a l e of beer by the g l a s s throughout B.C. or take a referendum on the question, but t h e i r request was denied. (The Province [Vancouver], November 10, 1922.) 3^5 Canadian Annual Review. 1922, p. 857. 3l+° Loc. c i t . As a sub t l e reminder to the Government, the l o c a l Methodist Conference meeting i n V i c t o r i a on May 25 o f the previous year had adopted a Committee Report which declared that the e l e c t o r a t e had i n s t r u c t e d the Government to provide an "adequate c o n t r o l of the d r i n k t r a f f i c and not to permit the s a l e of l i q u o r - i n u n l i m i t e d q u a n t i t i e s and f o r the purpose o f r a i s i n g revenue." ( I b i d . , 1921, p. 880.) 31+7 I b i d . . 1923, pp. 76k-66. 31+8 World [Vancouver], November 17, 1923. 31+9 Major R. J . Burde was an Independent member r e p r e s e n t i n g Port A l b e r n i . • (The Vancouver Sun, November 6, 1923.) 350 Loc. c i t . 351 The Province [Vancouver], November 21, 1923. 352 Canadian Annual Review. 1923, p. 765. 353 Attorney-General Manson, i n a statement i n the House blamed the Vancouver C i t y Council f o r the c r i t i c a l beer club s i t u a t i o n . Without g i v i n g s p e c i f i c examples he s a i d i t was the a c t i o n of the C i t y C ouncil which l e d to "the establishment of gambling dens and hard l i q u o r dives of the worst type" and "which had r e s u l t e d i n s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s which were an eyesore to a l l decent people." (Quoted i n The Vancouver Sun, December 18, 1923.) Alderman Rogers a n g r i l y denied the Attorney-General's charges. "When Mr. Manson says the c i t y c o u n c i l i ssued beer l i c e n c e s , he's wrong. Because we never d i d and he knows i t . When the C i t y brought i n the by-law to l i c e n s e clubs i t was c l e a r l y understood that there would be no p r o v i s i o n i n the by-law to permit clubs to s e l l beer. Everybody knows the clubs s e l l beer, but i t i s the p r o v i n c i a l government which s u p p l i e s them w i t h the beer and i t i s up t o the p r o v i n c i a l government to stop the supply 193 i f i t does not l i k e present c o n d i t i o n s . " (Quoted i n The Vancouver  Sun. December 1 8 , 1 9 2 3 . ) 354 B.C. Journals.1923. v o l . L I I I , p. 1 9 8 .. The Government's p o l i c y on the l i q u o r issue was h i n t e d at when P a r r i s , d u r i n g the throne speech debates "urged the government to take steps to provide b e t t e r f a c i l i t i e s f o r the securing o f beer by the g l a s s " as "the present system o f s e l l i n g l i q u o r o n l y i n b o t t l e s encouraged the consumption of s p i r i t s . " (Quoted i n the World [Vancouver], November 1 0 , 1 9 2 3 . ) Also Ian Mackenzie ( L i b e r a l member f o r Vancouver) had urged the government t o submit a beer p l e b i s c i t e w i t h the e l e c t o r s to have the opp o r t u n i t y o f l o c a l o p t i o n . (World. [Vancouver], November 17, 1 9 2 3 . ) 355 The Vancouver Sun. December 19, 1 9 2 3 - " I t may be argued that there i s no demand f o r beer by the g l a s s , " Mr. Manson admitted. " I confess I have always had grave doubts o f a demand f o r beer. I was never s a t i s f i e d i n my own mind that there was a very s u b s t a n t i a l demand f o r beer by the g l a s s . But there was a s u f f i c i e n t p o r t i o n of the p u b l i c who wanted beer to make i t extremely d i f f i c u l t to enforce the l i q u o r law unless you give beer to them. At present, the p u b l i c refused to abide by the l i q u o r law and i t was u s e l e s s to have on the s t a t u t e books a law that could not be enforced. I t would be f a r b e t t e r , to have a law that the p u b l i c would support. . . . " He added t h a t he wanted to give the people, i f they d e s i r e d i t , some system that they could respect and observe. (Quoted i n the C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , December 1 7 , 1 9 2 3 . ) 356 The Province [Vancouver], December 1 8 , 1 9 2 3 . 357 World [Vancouver], December 2 0 , 1 9 2 3 . 358 The Province [Vancouver], December 1 8 , 1 9 2 3 . 359 I b i d . . December 19, 1 9 2 3 . 360 World [Vancouver], December 1 , 1 9 2 3 . 361 C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , December 1 8 , 1 9 2 3 . 362 The Province [Vancouver], June 9 , 192k. 363 Loc. c i t . 36k I b i d . . November 2 6 , 1 9 2 3 . 365 The Vancouver Sun, December 1 6 , 1 9 2 3 . 366 C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , December 1 7 , 1 9 2 3 . 367 The Province [Vancouver], December 1 9 , 1 9 2 3 . 194 368 Quoted in the Times [Victoria], May 20, 192k. 3°9 The Province [Vancouver], May 1 3 , 192k. 370 Loc. c i t . 371 The charges continued, "This is entirely in keeping with the policy of the Liquor Control Board, which has steadily increased the number of liquor stores throughout the province, establishing them in some places, such as quite recently i n Cloverdale, where a three-to-one majority of the people petitioned against the opening of a store. In spite of this, however, the store was opened and is now doing business." (Quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], May 13, 192k.) An editorial appearing i n the Times [Victoria], supported this claim: "We have no recollection of hearing of any influential citizens appearing at the Parliament Buildings with the request for this course." (Times [Victoria], December k, 1923.) 372 The Province [Vancouver], May 19, 192k. Other organizations, societies and various churches lent their support to the Pro-hibition Association's campaign against the plebiscite. The fifty-four a f f i l i a t e d societies of the Local Council of Women, the W. C. T. U., the Methodist Conference, the Women's Missionary Society of the Metropolitan Church, the Victoria unit of the Labor Party, the Federation of Nurses, and the One Big Union. (The Province [Vancouver], May 12, 192k.) 373 The Vancouver Sun (morning edition), June 1 8 , 192k. 37k Loc. c i t . 375 The Province [Vancouver], June 12, 192k. 376 The Vancouver Sun (morning edition) June 1, 192k. 377 Loc. c i t . 378 Times [Victoria], May 20, 192k. 379 Colonist [Victoria], June 1 8 , 192k. 380 The Conservatives limited the liquor plank i n their platform to a promise to "recast the administration connected with the Liquor Department" and would "without fear or favor properly enforce the Liquor Act." (Party pamphlet Issued by the Conservative Party, entitled "Why I am voting against Oliver," n.p. 192k, n.p. p. 1 8 . ) The liquor plank of the Provincial Party was "That any drastic change i n the liquor laws of the province must be submitted to the people be referendum (preferably at a general election), in terms which w i l l permit a clear expression 195 of the w i l l of the people." (Quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], December 6 , 1 9 2 3 . ) 381 Canadian Annual Review, 192k-£, p. k k 9 . 382 "The recent advance i n the p r i c e of beer, to the brewers, and the p l e b c i t e ( s i c ) being taken at the general e l e c t i o n , was g e n e r a l l y accepted as a move f o r "campaign funds" and was resented by the temperance people." (Maxwell Smith to O l i v e r , J u l y 3 , 192k. Kept i n the P a t t u l l o Papers, uncatalogued, i n the P r o v i n c i a l Archives, V i c t o r i a . ) A l s o , i n a l e t t e r from C. B. L o t t a to O l i v e r , i t was claimed that the beer p r i c e increase had become an e l e c t i o n i s s u e w i t h the L i b e r a l s as the beer p a r t y . (C. B. L o t t a to O l i v e r , August k, 192k, P a t t u l l o Papers.) 383 Canadian Annual Review, 1923, pp. 7 7 k - 5 . 38k The Province [Vancouver], June 21, 192k. 385 "Minimum Wage Act," 1918; "Juvenile Courts A c t , " 1918; S o l d i e r ' s Land Act," 19l8; "Better Housing A c t , " 1919; "Deserted Wives' Maintenance A c t , " 1919; "Adoption Act," 1920; "Mothers' Pension A c t , " 1920; "Subnormal Boys' School Act," 1920. 386 Quoted from a copy of "The Health Insurance P l e b i s c i t e , " a r a d i o speech d e l i v e r e d by the Honourable G. M. Weir, May 23>, 1 9 3 7 , p. 1 . There was no system of stat e h e a l t h insurance on the North American c o n t i n e n t . 387 Dr. Mcintosh moved: "That t h i s L e g i s l a t u r e r e s o l v e i t s e l f i n t o a Committee of the Whole House to consider the question of "State H e a l t h Insurance," w i t h a view to d i s c u s s i n g the a d v i s a b i l i t y of appointing a Committee to b r i n g the B i l l before the close of t h i s Session o f the House." This motion was amended by Dr. MacLean ( L i b e r a l ) to read: "Resolved, That i n the o p i n i o n of t h i s House the e a r l y c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the Government of l e g i s l a t i o n w i t h respect to State Health Insurance, Mothers' Pensions, and the broadening of the p r o v i s i o n s of the "Workmen's Compensation Act" i s d e s i r a b l e . " (B.C. L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, Journals, 1919, p. l k k . ) 388 A p a r t i a l report o f the Committee was presented to the l e g i s l a t u r e , A p r i l 7 , 1920. (B.C. Journals. 1920, p. 6 0 . ) 389 I b i d . . 1928, p. 1 7 5 . 390 See Appendix XIV. 391 Loc. c i t . 392 Canadian Annual Review, 1 9 2 6 - 2 7 , pp. k 8 k - 5 \ 196 393 Canadian Annual Review. 1926-27, p. k 8 5 . 39k See Appendix XV. 395 Canadian Annual Review. 1927-28, p. 555. 396 Out of office since 1916, the Conservative Party was returned to office with a large majority of 33 seats; the Liberals held 12 and Labour, 1. (Ibid.. 1928-29, p. 508. ) 397 See Appendix XVI. 398 See Appendix XVII. 399 B.C. Journals. 1930, p. 53 . kOO Canadian Annual Review. 1929-30, pp. 523-k. kOl The Commission held 33 public meetings, 21 day and 12 night sittings throughout B.C. to determine the necessity of a health insurance scheme. It also examined the health plans of 25 countries. (B.C. Final Report of the Royal Commission on  State Health Insurance and Maternity Benefits. 1932. Victoria, King's Printer, 1932, p. x20.) k02 Ibid.. p. x59. k03 Ibid.. pp. x59-62. kOk Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial  Relations. Book I. Ottawa. King's Printer. 19k0. P. 171. k05 The Province reported "no possibility of state health insurance being adopted at the 1932 session of the legislature, but hope for a limited scheme at the next session." (The Province [Vancouver], April 3 , 1932.) k06 Canadian Annual Review, 1933, p. 295. The Independent (Non-Partisan) Party was organized by W. J. Bowser, Conservative Premier from 1915-16, but out of pol i t i c s since 1926. He Invited candidates from any party to run on the Independent platform. If the Independents were successful at the polls, their elected members were to choose a leader. During the campaign, Bowser died. (Ibid., pp. 293-5 . ) k07 Parties i n the f i e l d included: Unionist, Liberal, Conservative, Independent (Non-Partisan), C. C. F., Independent C. C. F., Labour, Independent Labour, Socialist, United Front. (Canadian Annual Review, 193k, pp. 328-9.) ko8 Also elected were 2 Independents (Non-Partisan) and 1 Labour Member. In 193k, Columbia was made an electoral d i s t r i c t and returned a Liberal by acclamation, giving the Liberals 35/k8 seats. (Canadian Annual Review. 193k, P. 335.) 197 k09 Dr. G. M. Weir was P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and M i n i s t e r of Education i n the P a t t u l l o Government. klO B.C. Jou r n a l s . 1935, p. H I . On J u l y 2k, 193k, the Province reported that the P a t t u l l o Government was.working on a necessary and welcome scheme of st a t e h e a l t h insurance, but warned t h a t , to be s u c c e s s f u l the assent and cooperation o f the medical p r o f e s s i o n was e s s e n t i a l . (The Province [Vancouver], J u l y 2k, 193k.) k l l "A Plan of Health Insurance f o r B r i t i s h Columbia," by Grant Fleming, Canadian P u b l i c H e a l t h J o u r n a l . September, 1935, v o l . 26, no. 9, p. k l 9 . k l 2 The Commission of Fiv e was t o c o n s i s t o f : the D i r e c t o r o f S o c i a l Welfare (Chairman), the P r o v i n c i a l H e a l t h O f f i c e r , the Chairman o f the Workmen's Compensation Board, the Adm i n i s t r a t o r o f Health Insurance and the D i r e c t o r o f Medical S e r v i c e s , the l a s t two to be appointed. ( I b i d . . pp. k20-21.) ^-3 Loc. c i t . In October, 193k, the B.C. H o s p i t a l s A s s o c i a t i o n Convention had appointed a Committee o f three to help Dr. Weir d r a f t the b i l l . (The Province [Vancouver], October 5, 1935.) k l k Canadian Annual Review. 1935-36, p. k l 2 . k l 5 Their r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was supported by the B.C. Lumber and Shingle Manufacturers' A s s o c i a t i o n . (The Province [Vancouver], September 12, 1935.) k l 6 I b i d . , September 10, 1935. k l 7 They inclu d e d : Women's I n s t i t u t e s ; League of Women Voters; W. C. T. U.; L o c a l Councils of Women, V i c t o r i a , Vancouver, New Westminster; Soroptimist Club; Canadian Daughters' League and the Registered Nurses' A s s o c i a t i o n of B.C. (From a copy of "The H e a l t h Insurance P l e b i s c i t e , " a rad i o speech by the Honourable G. M. Weir, May 25, 1937, PP. 2-3.) k l 8 The Province [Vancouver], September 10, 1935. k l 9 These sentiments were voiced by the B.C. Medical A s s o c i a t i o n meeting i n convention i n September, 1935* The President o f the Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n , addressing t h i s convention, used stronger language i n s t a t i n g h i s o p p o s i t i o n to the scheme. The doctors were, i n h i s words, to present "a u n i t e d f r o n t " and use " p o l i t i c a l pressure" to prevent the passage o f h e a l t h insurance l e g i s l a t i o n . He was, furthermore, opposed to any p r o v i n c i a l scheme, and claimed that "the Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n stands f o r a r o y a l commission to make a coast-to-coast i n v e s t i g a t i o n of h e a l t h insurance and decide upon what b a s i s , i f any, i t s h a l l be administered i n t h i s Dominion." (Dr. J . C. Meakins, quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], September 2k, 1935* 198 k20 Canadian Annual Review. 1935-36, p. 1+12. 1+21 D i v i s i o n on second reading, 28/10 w i t h f u l l C. C. P. support, t h i r d reading, 29/lk w i t h 5/7 G. C. P. members supporting i t . One of the L i b e r a l s who voted against i t was Dr. G - i l l i s , a member of the Royal Commission on State H e a l t h Insurance and M a t e r n i t y B e n e f i t s . (B.C. J o u r n a l s , 1936, pp. 103-k, p. 136.) 1+22 "Health Insurance A c t , " 1936. k23 Canadian Annual Review. 1935-36, p. k02. The 1935 d r a f t b i l l was t o have covered about 500,000 persons, at a cost of about f o r t y - f i v e cents per week t o the wage earner and provided f o r the care of i n d i g e n t s . (The Province [Vancouver], March 23, 1935.) 1+21+ Canadian Annual Review. 1935-36, pp. k01-2. Included i n t h i s group were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the Shipping Federation o f B.C.; the B u i l d i n g and Const r u c t i o n Industry's Exchange; the Vancouver General Contractors' A s s o c i a t i o n ; the Lumber and Shingle Manufacturers' A s s o c i a t i o n ; the Nursing A s s o c i a t i o n of B.C.; the Loggers' A s s o c i a t i o n ; the Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n ; the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Canadian N a t i o n a l and the Canadian P a c i f i c Railway Companies. (The Province [Vancouver], February 20, 1936.) 1+25 B.C. Jo u r n a l s , 1936, p. 35. Two o f the others were appointed on June 2 and the f o u r t h on September k« k26 Canadian Annual Review. 1937-38, pp. k96-7. k27 The p l e b i s c i t e and the general e l e c t i o n were announced on A p r i l 13, w i t h e l e c t i o n day to be on June 1. (The Province [Vancouver], A p r i l 13, 1937.) The terms o f the p l e b i s c i t e were announced on A p r i l 15. (The Vancouver Sun. A p r i l 15, 1937.) k28 Quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], A p r i l 13, 1937.) k29 Quoted from a " p l e b i s c i t e manifesto" under the signature of Premier P a t t u l l o , appearing i n The Vancouver Sun and The Province [Vancouver], A p r i l 15, 1937.) k30 Loc. c i t . k31 Quoted from "The Health Insurance P l e b i s c i t e , " a r a d i o speech d e l i v e r e d by the Honourable G. M. Weir on May 25, 1937. In the same speech, Dr. Weir defined the terms more c l o s e l y ; "The terms 'comprehensive' and ' p r o g r e s s i v e l y a p p l i e d ' might p r o p e r l y be construed t o mean simply 'wide i n the scope of b e n e f i t s ' and a p p l i e d to more and more people i n our Province. The terms can allo w of no other e x p l a n a t i o n and need none." 199 k 3 2 Dr. Weir's r a d i o speech o f May 25, 1 9 3 7 , pp. 9 - 1 0 . "The Government i s i n favour of a h e a l t h insurance measure, but w i l l be guided by the d e c i s i o n of the e l e c t o r a t e i n i t s f u t u r e a c t i o n . " ( P a t t u l l o , quoted from h i s " p l e b i s c i t e manifesto" i n The Province [Vancouver], A p r i l l£, 1 9 3 7 . ) 1+33 Quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], A p r i l 1 6 , 1 9 3 7 . 1+3L Quoted i b i d . . A p r i l 26, 1 9 3 7 . 1+35 I b i d . . A p r i l 1 6 , 1937. In the same e d i t o r i a l , i t was claimed t h a t "a p l e b i s c i t e of t h i s s ort i s not f a i r to the people of the Province, who are asked to vote i n the dark. I t i s not f a i r to the medical p r o f e s s i o n , who w i l l be asked t o work out the scheme. I t i s u n f a i r to p u b l i c h e a l t h insurance i t s e l f . " 1+36 Quoted from a copy of "The H e a l t h Insurance P l e b i s c i t e , " a r a d i o speech d e l i v e r e d by the Honourable G. M. Weir, May 2 5 , 1937, p. 1 0 . 1+37 Both the e l e c t i o n and the p l e b i s c i t e had to compete f o r a t t e n t i o n w i t h the coronation of King George VI, which took place i n May, 1 9 3 7 , the E t h i o p i a n c r i s i s and the Manchurian " i n c i d e n t , " among other important items of i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t . 1+38 Canadian Annual Review. 1 9 3 7 - 3 8 , p. 1+95. The L i b e r a l s h e l d 31 seats, the Conservatives returned to form the Opposition w i t h 8 s e a t s , w h i l e the C. C. P. r e t a i n e d 1 seats and Labour, 1 . 1+39 Loc. c i t . 1++0 Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial  A f f a i r s , Book I I , p. 1 5 9 . l+l+l Canadian Annual Review, 1 9 3 7 - 3 8 , p. 1+95. 1+1+2 See Appendix X V I I I . kl+3 " H o s p i t a l Insurance A c t , " 19^8. The "Health Insurance A c t , " 1 9 3 6 , was not repealed, though except f o r the p r o v i s i o n r e f e r r i n g to the H e a l t h Insurance Commission, i t has never been i n f o r c e , and remains i n the Statutes as c. ll+3, R. S. B. C., 19^8. 1+1+1+ The Canadian Almanac. 19l+l+» p i 31+1+. 1+1+5 B.C. Statement o f Votes: General E l e c t i o n , June 12, 1 9 5 2 , V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1 9 5 3 , p. ll+. Prom 191+1 to the present (1958) the C. C. P. has formed the Opposition i n the B.C. L e g i s l a t u r e . 200 kk6 D r . W. S. Reid i n h i s p r e s i d e n t i a l r e p o r t , quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], November 22, 1931. l+k7 I b i d . . October 21, 1935. kk8 I b i d . . January 13, 1936. W+9 I b i d . . August k, 1937. k50 B.C. Journals. 1938, v o l . LXVIII, p. 59. k 5 l The Province [Vancouver], December 17, 19k2. k52 Federal wartime r e s t r i c t i o n s were repealed, except as they r e l a t e d to a d v e r t i s i n g , on August 6, 19k5. (The Province [Vancouver], August 6, 19k5.) k53 News-Heraid [Vancouver], September 20, 19k5. kb\ I b i d . . August 29, 19k5. k55 The Province [Vancouver], March 16, 19k6. k56 I b i d . , March 20, 19k6. k57 Loc. c i t . k58 I b i d . . May 21, 19k6. k59 I b i d . . October 2, 19k6. k60 I b i d . . January 16, 19k7. k 6 l I b i d . . January 15, 19k7. k62 I b i d . . March 3, 19k7. k63 I b i d . . March 27, 19k7. k6k I b i d . . October 5, 19l*8. k65 During the Session the Cabaret A s s o c i a t i o n and the Restaurant A s s o c i a t i o n requested the Government to l e g i s l a t e f o r the s a l e of l i q u o r i n cabarets and r e s t a u r a n t s . Their a p p l i c a t i o n s were r e j e c t e d . k66 The Province [Vancouver], March 11, 19k9. k67 "But," he continued, "the w i l l of the people must p r e v a i l . I f i n the f u t u r e , the government sees f i t , a p l e b i s c i t e may be h e l d . " (Quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], March 11, 191+9.) On March 13, 19k9, the Government announced the date of the general e l e c t i o n (June 15, 19k9), but made no mention of a l i q u o r p l e b i s c i t e . ( I b i d . , March 13, 19*1-9.) 201 1+68 The Province [Vancouver], March 31, 1950. k69 I b i d . , March 7, 1951. k70 I b i d . . March 30, 1951. 1+71 Wismer was p e r s o n a l l y opposed to an increase i n l i q u o r o u t l e t s : "The theory that two or three hundred new cosy places on the f r o n t s t r e e t s e l l i n g l i q u o r would l e s s e n d r i n k i n g i s one that f o r sheer h y p o c r i s y equals even the most v i c i o u s i n s i n u a t i o n s that have been launched against my good f a i t h . " (Quoted i n The Province [Vancouver], March 30, 1951.) lj-72 B.C. Gazette. A p r i l 2i+, 1952, v o l . XCII, no. 17, p. 1169. See also Appendix XIX. 1+73 The Province [Vancouver], A p r i l 19, 1952. I4.7I+ " . . . The present p l e b i s c i t e has been a l a s t minute concession to an e l e c t o r a t e about to vote on the l i f e of the ad m i n i s t r a t i o n i t s e l f , a k i n to a death-bed repentance. . . Having done nothing e f f e c t i v e about l i q u o r c o n t r o l f o r three years although under pressure to a c t , the present regime now asks the e l e c t o r s to f u r n i s h i t w i t h a mandate i n blank and t h i s i s c a l l e d " l o c a l o p t i o n . " The p l e b i s c i t e i s not o n l y a f u t i l e but a mischievous one. Under i t a yes-vote on a d m i n i s t r a t i o n could l i c e n s e open-door saloons, peephole c o c k t a i l b a r s , more roadhouses or anything e l s e that could be read i n t o the meaning of a question which i s as wide as a barn door. A no-vote might prove an excuse to continue t o do nothing. In short, the e l e c t o r s are being asked to give the L i b e r a l s , i f they are returned, blanket a u t h o r i t y to do what they l i k e w i t h l i q u o r c o n t r o l . . . . " (Prom an e d i t o r i a l appearing i n the C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , June 10, 1952.) 475 Times [ V i c t o r i a ] , June 13, 1952. i+76 The Vancouver Sun. May 13, 1952. 1+77 I b i d . . May 28, 1952. Except f o r c r i t i c i s m s of the L i b e r a l government's l i q u o r p o l i c y , d i r e c t e d mainly at the vague wording of the p l e b i s c i t e , the l i q u o r p l e b i s c i t e was not a p o l i t i c a l i s s u e . J4.78 The Province [Vancouver], A p r i l 19, 1952. 1+79 I b i d . , May 23, 1952. "Are you sure you want a bar i n your neighbourhood?" was the v e r s i o n featured i n the C o l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] , June 1, 1952. 1+80 The Province [Vancouver], May 16, 1952. 1+81 I b i d . , May 19, 1952. 202 k82 The Province [Vancouver], May 5, 1952. 1+.83 The Vancouver Sun. June 3, 1952. k8k The Province [Vancouver], May 27, 1952. 1L85 The Vancouver Sun. June 5, 1952. k86 I b i d . . May 27, 1952. k87 The r e s u l t s of the p l e b i s c i t e : Yes - 315,533 Rejected - 20,856 No - 205,736 T o t a l - 5 k 2 , l l 5 No. of voters - 793,073 (B.C. Statement of Votes, General E l e c t i o n h e l d June 12. 1952. V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1953, P. 136.) k88 The general e l e c t i o n r e s u l t s : Cooperative Commonwealth Fe d e r a t i o n (C. C. F.) - 18 L i b e r a l s - 6 Conservatives (Progressive-Conservatives) - k Labour r, 1 ( I b i d . , p. 13) k89 B.C. Report of the B r i t i s h Columbia Liquor I n q u i r y  Commission, 1952, V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1953* P. 3.) Among the terms of the Order i n C o u n c i l appointing the commission was the f o l l o w i n g statement: "And whereas i t has been represented to H i s Honour's Government that the wording of the question ( p l e b i s c i t e ) was not c l e a r and unambiguous and that i t i s deemed d e s i r a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t that the releva n t f a c t s r e l a t i n g to the s a l e , d i s t r i b u t i o n and consumption of s p i r i t u o u s , vinous and malt l i q u o r s be made the subject o f a p u b l i c inquiry;,- and that the matter concerned i s connected w i t h the good government of the Province, and i t i s deemed expedient t o cause i n q u i r y to be made i n t o and concerning the same." (Quoted i n the Report, p. 3.) k90 I b i d . , p. k. k91 I b i d . . pp. 26-30. k92 B.C. S t a t u t e s . 1953, chap. I k , sec. 133, 13k. k93 I b i d . . sec. 2$. k9k "Daylight Saving," i n The Encyclopedia of Canada, v o l . I I , Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y Associates o f Canada L i m i t e d , 1935, P» 187. 203 k95> "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe a period in each year in which the time, for general purposes i n the Province, shall be seven hours behind Greenwich Time." ("An Act to provide for the reckoning of Standard Time during the Summer Months." B.C. Revised Statutes. 192k, c. 65, sec. 1.) I4.96 The Province [Vancouver], June 23, 1 9 k l . k97 B.C. Gazette. 1 9 k l , vol. LXXXI, no. 27, July 3, 1 9 k l , pp. 80k-5. k98 The Province [Vancouver], July 10, 1 9 k l . k99 Ibid.. August 28, 1 9 k l . 500 Ibid.. January 26, 19k2. £01 Ibid.. March 20, 1952. 502 Ibid.. June 5, 1952. 503 Results of the daylight saving plebiscite: Yes - 290,353 Reject - 20,828 No - 231,008 Total - 5k2,l89 No. of voters - 793,073. . (B.C. Statement of Votes: General election. June 12. 1952. Victoria, Queen's Printer, 1953, p. 137. 50k These were the predominantly rural electoral d i s t r i c t s of: Caribou, Chilliwack, Columbia, Delta, Dewdney, Fort George, Karaloops, North Okanagan, Omineca,.. Rossland-Trail, Salmon Arm, Similkameen, Yale. (Ibid., p. 137.) 505 This advantage of permitting selection as between issues cannot be claimed for the other liquor plebiscites as the circumstances were not the same. Nor were these plebiscites presented as having this advantage, but were presented as moral Issues. 506 "Which do you prefer (1) Maintenance of the present Prohibition Act or (2) An Act to provide for Government control and sale, i n sealed packages, of spirituous and malt liquor?" (B.C. Statutes,. 1920, c. 93.) 507 Though Oliver asked the legislature to consider the liquor b i l l as a nonpartisan issue, the b i l l passed third reading on a party vote. 204 517 The speech from the throne had made no mention of p r o h i b i t i o n and Premier Bowser had to c a l l an e x t r a session o f the l e g i s l a t u r e to provide f o r the p r o h i b i t i o n and woman's suffrage referendums. 518 While r e f u s i n g to define what government c o n t r o l and government sale meant, O l i v e r had no h e s i t a t i o n i n s t a t i n g t h a t i t d i d not countenance any type of p u b l i c s a l e of l i q u o r or beer by the g l a s s . 519 Daylight saving has been accepted without f u r t h e r p r o t e s t and the Government has been untroubled by p e t i t i o n s r e q u e s t i n g i t s a b o l i t i o n . In 23/ii8 e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t s , there was a m a j o r i t y negative vote f o r d a y l i g h t saving, a l l o f which could be c l a s s i f i e d as r u r a l r i d i n g s . The t o t a l negative vote was 231,008 w h i l e the t o t a l p o s i t i v e vote was 290,353. This vote contrasted sharply w i t h the vote on the l i q u o r p l e b i s c i t e , i n which only four e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t s r e g i s t e r e d a m a j o r i t y negative vote and the t o t a l negative vote was 205,736 as against a t o t a l p o s i t i v e vote o f 315,533. (B.C. Statement of Votes: General e l e c t i o n . June 12. 1952. V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1953, PP. 136-7.) 520 Bowser's own e x p l a n a t i o n ". . . since the great question of p r o h i b i t i o n was coming before the people, a referendum should be taken at the same time on the important i s s u e o f the f r a n c h i s e " does not assert any s p e c i a l advantage f o r u s i n g the referendum. 521 P r i v a t e Members' b i l l s could not be u t i l i z e d f o r p u b l i c h e a l t h insurance as i t i n v o l v e d the expenditure of p u b l i c funds. 522 Between 1903-16, the Government was Conservative. The b i l l s were introduced by S o c i a l i s t s or L i b e r a l s , except f o r the 1916 one which was introduced by Conservatives. 523 I t was measurably stronger, as the number of signatures on the p e t i t i o n s increased over the years. 521). "Known attempt" would be a more accurate phrase here. A f t e r f a i l u r e of the l o c a l o p t i o n p l e b i s c i t e the temperance s o c i e t i e s were faced w i t h a h o s t i l e Conservative-dominated l e g i s l a t u r e , i n which the Opposition of 1909-12 c o n s i s t e d of 2 S o c i a l i s t s and 1 L i b e r a l and from 1912-16, of two S o c i a l i s t s , whose vehement o p p o s i t i o n to p r o h i b i t i o n was well-known. The temperance s o c i e t i e s may very w e l l have t r i e d to i n t e r e s t one of the members i n i n t r o d u c i n g a p r i v a t e b i l l on p r o h i b i t i o n , but f a i l e d i n the attempt. 525 Or a m i n o r i t y p a r t y which can command the support of other p a r t i e s f o r i t s l e g i s l a t i o n . 205 508 As such, the l i q u o r p l e b i s c i t e played no part i n the p o l i t i c a l campaign, but there was another l i q u o r issue i n the campaign. The increase i n the p r i c e of beer to the wholesaler was used by the P r o v i n c i a l Party against the L i b e r a l s as evidence that they were buying support of the " l i q u o r i n t e r e s t s . " The L i b e r a l Party was thus represented t o the e l e c t o r a t e , i n the opin i o n of some L i b e r a l s , as a "wet" par t y . (Maxwell Smith to O l i v e r , J u l y 3, 192k; and C. B. L o t t a to O l i v e r , August k, 192k.) In the event, the e l e c t o r a t e r e j e c t e d the p l e b i s c i t e and returned a m i n o r i t y L i b e r a l Government. However, i t i s not po s s i b l e to e s t a b l i s h a c o r r e l a t i o n between the two r e s u l t s , on the i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e . 509 There was no attempt to use t h i s argument i n the case o f the woman's suffrage referendum and the d a y l i g h t saving p l e b i s c i t e . 510 I t was not advanced as an argument i n favor of any o f the other p l e b i s c i t e s , though a f t e r the event, Attorney-General F a r r i s claimed t h a t the Temperance p l e b i s c i t e prevented a pa r t y s p l i t . However, O l i v e r had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y g e t t i n g u n i f i e d support from the L i b e r a l s f o r h i s Liquor Control Act, 1921, though the p l e b i s c i t e could o n l y be i n t e r p r e t e d as r e j e c t i n g p r o h i b i t i o n and not as a mandate f o r the l i q u o r system embodied i n the Act. 511 L e t t e r 265/09 of McBride to Spencer, October 1, 1909. 512 "No holder o f a beer l i c e n c e under t h i s Act s h a l l keep or maintain, or permit to be kept or maintained, i n any part o f the premises i n respect o f which the l i c e n c e i s is s u e d any bar or counter over or at which any a l c o h o l i c or n o n - a l c o h o l i c beverage i s s o l d . " (Government Liquor Act, R. S. 192k, c. Ik6, s. 28(9). 513 McBride, quoted i n L e t t e r 999/09 of McBride to Spencer, October 25, 1909. 5lk McBride, quoted i n L e t t e r 265/09 of McBride to Morgan and Spencer, J u l y 20, 1909. 515 The announcement that a p l e b i s c i t e on l o c a l o p t i o n would be h e l d was made on October 20; the t e x t was announced on November l k and the vote was taken on November 25. 516 McBride had promised t o consult the Local Option League on the wording o f the p l e b i s c i t e . Morgan and Spencer pointed out that there was a d i f f e r e n c e between a vote f o r a l o c a l o p t i o n law and a vote f o r l o c a l o p t i o n and urged McBride to e x p l a i n h i s i n t e n t i o n regarding i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l a t t e r as i f i t were the former and thus c l a r i f y the i s s u e f o r the p u b l i c . ( L e t t e r 265/09 of Spencer t o McBride, October 29, 19Q9.) 206 526 But r e s p o n s i b i l i t y cuts two'ways and the cabinet i s not merely a "committee of the l e g i s l a t u r e , " subject to i t s l e g i s l a t u r e ' s whim, f o r the executive power of d i s s o l u t i o n enables the Cabinet to prevent c a p r i c i o u s behaviour by the l e g i s l a t u r e and thus to ensure a s t a b l e government. 527 By convention, amendment o f a money b i l l i n v o l v e s the r e s i g n a t i o n of the Government. 528 Whereas i n the American system, he s e l e c t s these s e p a r a t e l y , or has a double run at them since he s e l e c t s the executive and the l e g i s l a t u r e s e p a r a t e l y and both may i n i t i a t e l e g i s l a t i o n . 529 The D i r e c t L e g i s l a t i o n Act, 1919, which provides f o r both i n i t i a t i v e and referendum by the e l e c t o r a t e has never been i n f o r c e , though i t i s not p o s s i b l e to c l a i m that t h i s r e s u l t s from the Governments of B.C. being aware of the dangers to r e s p o n s i b l e government inherent i n t h e i r use. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Amery, L. S. Thoughts on the C o n s t i t u t i o n . London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1953. Cleverdon, Catherine. The Woman Suffrage Movement i n Canada. Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1950. C l o k i e , H. McD. Canadian Government and P o l i t i c s . Toronto, Longmans, Green & Company, 19hHT» Dawson, Robert MacGregor. Democratic Government i n Canada. Minneapolis, U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Press, I9I4.9. Hopkins, J . C a s t e l l , ed. The Canadian Annual Review of P u b l i c  A f f a i r s . Toronto, Annual Review P u b l i s h i n g Company L i m i t e d , 1903-191+0. ( V o l s . 2-35, 1902-1938.) Jennings, ( S i r ) I v o r . Cabinet Government. 2nd. ed., Cambridge, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1951. Johnson, R. Byron. Very Far West Indeed: A Few Rough Experiences  on the North-West P a c i f i c Coast. London, Sampson, Law, Marston, Law & S e a r l e , 1872. Kennedy, W. P. M. Essays i n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law. London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 193k. Lees, J . A. and Clut t e r b u c k , W. J . B. C. 1887. A Ramble i n B r i t i s h Columbia. London, Longmans, Green & Company, I 8 9 2 . M a c G i l l , E l s i e Gregory. My Mother the Judge: A Biography of Judge Helen Gregory M a c G i l l . Toronto, Ryerson Press, 1955. Munro, W i l l i a m Bennett. American Influences on Canadian  Government. Toronto, Macmillan, 1929. Olmsted, Richard A. Decisions of the J u d i c i a l Committee of the  P r i v y Council r e l a t i n g to the B r i t i s h North America Act. 1867 and The Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n . 1867-I95k. V o l . I I . Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 199+. 207 208 Pankhurst, E. S y l v i a . The S u f f r a g e t t e Movement: An Intimate  Account of Persons and I d e a l s . London, Longmans, Green & Company, 1 9 3 1 . P e e l , Roy V. and Roucok, Joseph S., eds. I n t r o d u c t i o n to P o l i t i c s . New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, I9I4.6. P h i l l i p s , Hood. The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law o f Great B r i t a i n and the-Commonwealth. London. Sweet & Maxwell L t d . . 1952. Pope, Joseph. Confederation. Toronto, Caswell Co. L t d . , 1 8 9 5 . R i d d e l l , W i l l i a m R. The Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n i n Form and i n Fact. New York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 2 3 . Spence, Ruth E. P r o h i b i t i o n i n Canada. Toronto, The Ontario Branch o f the Dominion A l l i a n c e , 1 9 2 0 . B. BOOKS PUBLISHED BY LEARNED SOCIETIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS The Canadian Almanac. 19llll.. Toronto, Copp C l a r k , 19klt. . The Canadian Parliamentary Guide. 1 9 l k . Ottawa, The Mortimer Company L t d . , 191k. The Encyclopedia of Canada. V o l . I I , Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y Associates o f Canada L i m i t e d , 1 9 3 5 * H a l l s b u r y ' s Laws of England. V o l . XI, London, Butterworth & Co., (P u b l i s h e r s ) L t d . , 1 9 3 3 . The N a t i o n a l American Woman Suffrage A s s o c i a t i o n . V i c t o r y : How  Women Won I t . A Centennial Symposium I81i0-19k0. New York, H. W. Wilson, 19k0. 209 C. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS B r i t i s h Columbia, The B r i t i s h Columbia Gazette. V o l . LX, no. £2 , December 2 3 , 1 9 2 0 ; v o l . LXXXI, no. 2 5 , J u l y 3 , 1 9 k l ; v o l . XCII, no. 1 7 , A p r i l 2 k , 1 9 5 2 , V i c t o r i a , King's (Queen's) P r i n t e r , same dates. B r i t i s h Columbia. Report o f the B r i t i s h Columbia Liquor I n q u i r y  Commission. 1952. V i c t o r i a . Queen's P r i n t e r . 1953. B r i t i s h Columbia. Revised Statutes of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1 8 9 7 . V o l s . I , I I ; 1 9 1 1 , v o l s . I - I I I ; 1 9 2 k , v o l s . I - I I I ; 1 9 k 8 , v o l s . I-IV, V i c t o r i a , Queen's (King's) P r i n t e r , same dates. B r i t i s h Columbia. S e s s i o n a l Papers. Second Session, F i f t h Parliament, Session 1 8 8 8 , V i c t o r i a , Government P r i n t e r , 1 8 8 8 ; T h i r d Session, Fourth Parliament, Session 1 8 8 5 , V i c t o r i a , Government P r i n t e r , 1 8 8 5 ; F i r s t Session, S i x t h Parliament, Session 1 8 9 1 , V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1 8 9 1 . B r i t i s h Columbia Chief E l e c t o r a l O f f i c e r . Statement o f Votes. General E l e c t i o n h e l d June 1 2 t h . , 1 9 5 2 . V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1953. B r i t i s h Columbia. Sta t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1 8 9 1 , 1910, 1 9 1 1 , 1 9 1 3 , 1915 , 1916, 1917, 1 9 1 8 , 1 9 1 9 , 1 9 2 0 , 1921, 1 9 2 k , 1936 ( F i r s t Session,) 19k8, 1 9 5 2 , 1 9 5 3 , V i c t o r i a , Queen's (King's) P r i n t e r , same dates. B r i t i s h Columbia. The Statu t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia up to and  i n c l u d i n g the year 1 8 8 8 , c l a s s i f i e d and co n s o l i d a t e d by  a u t h o r i t y . V o l . I - Consolidated A c t s , 1888, V i c t o r i a . Government P r i n t e r , 1 8 8 8 . B r i t i s h Columbia, L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. Journals. V o l . I-LXXXIII, 1872-1953 ( 2 n d . Session,) V i c t o r i a , Government (Queen's, King's) P r i n t e r , 1 8 7 2 - 1 9 5 3 . B r i t i s h Columbia, Royal Commission on State H e a l t h Insurance and Ma t e r n i t y B e n e f i t s . F i n a l Report. V i c t o r i a , King's P r i n t e r , 1 9 3 2 . Canada. The Canada Gazette. Sept. 3 , 1 8 9 8 , v o l . XXXII, no. 1 0 ; Nov. 5 , 1 8 9 8 , v o l . XXXII, no. 1 9 ; Nov. 26, 1 8 9 8 , v o l . XXXII, no. 2 2 ; Jan. 7 , 1 8 9 9 , v o l . XXXII, no. 2 8 , Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1 8 9 8 , 1 8 9 9 . 2X0 Canada, Parliament, House of Commons. Jou r n a l s . 187k. Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 187k, v o l . I I I . Canada, Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial R e l a t i o n s . Report. Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 19k0, Book I , I I . D. LETTERS P a r r i s to Adams. A p r i l 12, 1956. S i r Richard McBride C o l l e c t i o n i n P r o v i n c i a l Archives at V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. Paper 154/09 of the McBride C o l l e c t i o n , signed by L l o y d A. Manly, President and H. H. Maloney, A c t i n g Secretary. L e t t e r 190/09. Spencer t o McBride, November 18, 1909. Telegram 190/09. McBride to Spencer, November 22, 1909. L e t t e r 265/09. E. B. Morgan to McBride, May 18, 1909. L e t t e r 265/09. E. B. Morgan to McBride, June 1, 1909. L e t t e r 265/09. McBride to Morgan and Spencer, J u l y 20, 1909. L e t t e r 265/09. Morgan and Spencer t o McBride, J u l y 17, 1909. L e t t e r 265/09. Spencer to McBride, October 29, 1909. L e t t e r 265/09. McBride to Spencer, October 1, 1909. L e t t e r 286/10. McBride to Spencer, February l k , 1910. L e t t e r 29k/09. Watts to McBride, March 23, 1909. L e t t e r 310/09. Manly to McBride, A p r i l 2, 1909. L e t t e r 329/09. McBride's p r i v a t e s e c r e t a r y (name not given) to Dr. John Madden o f Oregon, A p r i l 16, 1909. Telegram 72k/09. McBride from The Province, J u l y 12, 1909. Telegram 72k/09. The Province from McBride, J u l y 12, 1909. L e t t e r 800/09. McBride to Rev. S. D. Chown, D. D., September 7, 1909. 2 1 1 L e t t e r 999/09. Stevens to McBride, October 2 1 , 1 9 0 9 . L e t t e r 9 9 9 / 0 9 . McBride to Stevens, October 2 5 , 1 9 0 9 . L e t t e r 1239/09. Duvernet to McBride, December 1, 1 9 0 9 . L e t t e r 2 9 2 / 1 0 . Spencer to McBride, January 2 5 , 1 9 1 0 . L e t t e r 2 9 2 / 1 0 . Spencer and Morgan to McBride, January 3 1 , 1 9 1 0 . L e t t e r 2 9 2 / 1 0 . McBride to Spencer, February l k , 1 9 1 0 . L e t t e r 2 9 2 / 1 0 . Spencer to McBride, June 1, 1 9 1 0 . L e t t e r 7 2 / 1 5 . Rogers to McBride, October 30, 1 9 1 5 . Paper 7 2 / 1 5 . P e t i t i o n submitted by the Merchants' P r o t e c t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n to Premier McBride on October k, 1 9 1 5 . L e t t e r 7 2 / l 5 . McBride to Rogers, undated. L e t t e r 7 2 / 1 5 . Home to McBride, August 3 , 1 9 1 5 . L e t t e r 7 2 / l 5 . Mahon to McBride, November 5 , 1 9 1 5 . L e t t e r 7 2 / 1 5 . McBride to Mahon, November 1 0 , 1 9 1 5 . The O l i v e r C o l l e c t i o n , kept i n the P a t t u l l o Papers, uncatalogued, i n the P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. L e t t e r . C. B. L o t t a to Oli v e r , ' August k, 1 9 2 k . L e t t e r . Maxwell Smith to O l i v e r , J u l y 3 , 1 9 2 k . E. NEWSPAPERS Co l o n i s t [ V i c t o r i a ] . October 2 0 , 1 9 0 9 ; November l k , 1 9 0 9 ; J u l y 1 1 , 1 9 1 6 ; A p r i l 9 , 1 9 2 0 ; A p r i l l i j . , 1 9 2 0 ; October 1 9 , 1 9 2 0 ; December 17, 1 9 2 3 ; December 1 8 , 1 9 2 3 ; June 1 8 , 1921+; June 1 , 1 9 5 2 ; June 1 9 , 1 9 5 2 . News-Advertiser [Vancouver], February 3, 1 9 0 9 ; March 6 , 1 9 0 9 ; November 2 1 , 1 9 0 9 ; November 2 3 , 1 9 0 9 ; November 2 k , 1 9 0 9 ; January 2 k , 1 9 1 0 ; January 2 9 , 1 9 1 0 ; March 9 , 1913; March 2 1 , 1 9 1 3 ; March 30, 1913; J u l y 29, 1 9 1 6 ; August k, 1916; August 1 1 , 1916; September 1 , 1 9 1 6 ; September 2 , 1916; September 8 , 1916; September l k , 1 9 1 6 ; September 17, 1 9 1 6 . 212 News-Herald [Vancouver], August 29, 19k5; September 20, 19li5. The Province [Vancouver]. NovembeE 3 , 1909; November 13, 1909; October 18, 1920; October 2, 1920; October 5, 1920; October 8, 1920; October 12, 1920; October 16, 1920; October 19, 1920; October 20, 1920; October 21, 1920; February 17, 1921; February 22, 1921; February 2k, 1921; November 10, 1922; May 12, 1923; November 21, 1923; November 26, 1923; December 6, 1923; December 18, 1923; December 19, 1923; May 12, 192lx; May 13, 192k; May 19, 192k; June 9, 192k; June 12, 192k; June 21, 192lx; November 22, 1931; January 30, 1932; February 20, 1932; A p r i l 3, 1932; J u l y 2k, 193k; October 5, 193k; February 22, 1935; March 23, 1935; September 10, 1935; September 12, 1935; September 20, 1935; September 21)., 1935; October 21, 1935; December 10, 1935; January 13, 1936; February 15, 1936; February 20, 1936; March 25, 1936; March 26, 1936; A p r i l 1, 1936; May 20, 1936; January 30, 1937; February 1, 1937; February 13, 1937; August k, 1937; October 23, 1937; Janaury 27, 1939; J u l y 18, 1939; June 23, 1 9 k l ; J u l y 10, 1 9 k l ; August 28, 1 9 k l ; December 17, 19k2: August 6, 19k5; March 16, 19k6; March 20, 19k6; May 21, 19k6; October 2, 19k6; January l b , 19k7; March 3, 19k7, March 28, 19k7; October 5, 19k8; March 11, 19k9; March 13, 19k9; March 31, 1950; March 7, 1951; March 30, 1951; March 19, 1952; March 20, 1952; January 26, 1952; A p r i l 19, 1952; May 5, 1952; May 16, 1952; May 19, 1952; May 23, 1952; May 27, 1952; June 5, 1952. Times [ V i c t o r i a ] , September 12, 1916; September 13, 1916; October 9, 1920; October 21, 1920; December k, 1923; May 20, 192k; June 13, 1952. The Vancouver Sun. March 19, 1913; August 23, 1915; August 27, 1915; September 2, 1916; September l k , 1916; September 15, 1916; October 5, 1920; October 6, 1920; October 13, 1920; October 15, 1920; October 17, 1920; October 18, 1920; October 21, 1920; October 2lx, 1920; November 6, 1923; November 21, 1923; December 16, 1923; December 18, 1923; December 19, 1923; January 30, 1932; February 20, 1932; A p r i l 3, 1932; J u l y 2k, 193k; October 5, 193k; February 22, 1935; March 23, 1935; September 10, 1935; September 12, 1935* September 20, 1935; September 2k, 1935; December 10, 1935; February 15, 1936; February 20, 1936; March 25, 1936; March 26, 1936; A p r i l 1, 1936; May 20, 1936; January 30, 1937; February 1, 1937; February 13, 1937; January 27, 1939; J u l y 18, 1939. The Vancouver Sun (morning e d i t i o n ) . Women's S p e c i a l E d i t i o n , March 19, 1913; June 1, 192k; June 18, 192I4. 213 World [Vancouver]. May 6, 1909; October 21, 1909; October 26, 1909; November 26, 1909; November 30, 1909; January 20, 1910; January 2k, 1910; February k, 1911; February 11, 1911; February 17, 1911; August 11, 1915; August 23, 1915; August 2k, 1915; August 30, 1915; August 27, 1915; November 10, 1923; November 17, 1923; December 1, 1923; December 20, 1923; October 1, 1920; October 6, 1920; October 15, 1920; October 18, 1920; October 19, 1920; October 21, 1920; October 27, 1920. F. PAMPHLETS Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n . Report of the Committee on Economics  of the Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n as presented at the  Annual Meeting i n Calgary, June 18-22, 193k. n.p.. nd. Garland, Rev. M. A. and Talman, J . J . Pioneer D r i n k i n g Habits  and the R i s e of Temperance A g i t a t i o n i n Upper Canada P r i o r  t o l8kQ. Reprinted from the Ontario H i s t o r i c a l Society's "Papers and Records," v o l . XXVII, 1931. LaPalombara, Joseph G. The I n i t i a t i v e and Referendum i n Oregon: 1938-19k8. Oregon State Monographs, Studies i n P o l i t i c a l Science, no. 1, C o r v a l l i s , Oregon State College, 1950. Townley, Mrs. C. R. Points i n the Laws o f B r i t i s h Columbia Regarding the Legal Status of Women. Issued by the Vancouver Branch o f the B. C. P o l i t i c a l E q u a l i t y League, n.d. Vancouver Women's B u i l d i n g , L i m i t e d . Yearbook, 1922. Vancouver, Vancouver Women's B u i l d i n g L i m i t e d , 1923. A c o n f i d e n t i a l memorandum f o r the executive c o u n c i l , signed by Premier John O l i v e r , undated and uncatalogued paper i n the P a t t u l l o c o l l e c t i o n , P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. Pamphlet i s s u e d by the Conservative Party e n t i t l e d "Why I am vo t i n g against O l i v e r . " N.p., 192k. Pamphlet (no t i t l e ) i s s ued by the P r o h i b i t i o n Movement kept i n the Vancouver C i t y Archives c o l l e c t i o n e n t i t l e d " P r o h i b i t i o n Docket." 214 G. PERIODICAL MATERIAL Hughes, C. J . "The Referendum," Parliamentary A f f a i r s , v o l . XI, no. 1, 1958, London, The Hansard S o c i e t y f o r Parliamentary Government. (Winter 1957-58.) Weir, G. M. "Health Insurance and our People." The B u l l e t i n of the B r i t i s h Columbia Board of Hea l t h , v o l . 8, no. 15 (December 1935.) H. RADIO SPEECHES [Weir, G. M.]. Copy of Radio Speech d e l i v e r e d by the Honourable G. M. Weir. "The He a l t h Insurance P l e b i s c i t e , " May 25, 1937, n.p., n.d. [Weir, G. M.]. Copy of Radio Speech d e l i v e r e d by the Honourable G. M. Weir, C. K. W. X., Vancouver, F r i d a y , May 7th, 1937, "Why Women of B r i t i s h Columbia Should Vote f o r the H e a l t h Insurance P l e b i s c i t e , " n.p., n.d. I . UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Hunt, Peter Robert. The P o l i t i c a l Career o f S i r Richard McBride. Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. APPENDIX I LIST of the petitions, resolutions and b i l l s presented to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia re regulation of liquor sale and consumption between 1872 and 1909. 1872-1883: None. l88k: Petition from the "Women's Christian Temperance Union of Victoria, B.C." was read and received by the Assembly re: the wording of the "Dominion Liquor Act, 1883." (Journals. i88k, p. k^.) 1885: None. 1886: Petition from E. V. Bodwell, R. Ward, and 687 others re: Sunday closing of saloons, etc., was read and received. (Journals. 1886, p. kk.) 1887: Petition from Louis Marks, John Gilmore, and others, for a revision of the laws relating to the liquor t r a f f i c in the Province, was ruled out of order as being a copy only. (Journals. 1887, p. 26.) 1888: Petitions from residents of Victoria, New Westminster, Vancouver, Langley, Nicola, Nanaimo, Kamloops, Comox were read and received re: 1. The closing of a l l places for the sale of intoxicating liquors from midnight u n t i l six o'clock in the morning on a l l weekdays, and during the whole of Sundays; 2. That the maximum number of licences to be issued be fixed, so as to be fewer than at present in proportion to the population; 3. That efficient machinery be provided for enforcing such regulations as may be enacted. (Sessional papers. 1888, p. 311.) 1889-1890: None. 1891: Petition from Thomas W. Mouatt and 21 others was read and received re: . . . believing, therefore, that the closing of Saloons, Bars, Shops and other places where such liquors are sold would materially lessen the evils complained of, and be a great benefit to the community at large, we do earnestly pray your Honourable House to enact such legislation as w i l l secure the closing of such places throughout the . Province from 7 p.m. on Saturday t i l l 7 a.m. on Monday in each week, and from 11 p.m. t i l l 1 a.m. during the rest of the week. (Sessional papers. 1891, p. kip'.) 215 216 A similar petition from T. Bryant and 1679 others was read and received. (Sessional papers. 1 8 9 1 , p. k25.) A similar petition from J. S. Muir and 1557 others was read and received. (Sessional papers. 1 8 9 1 , p. ij-85.) 1 8 9 2 : Petition from John Welch and 18 other ratepayers of the Electoral District of Cowichan was read and received re: That i t was unnecessary, and not required and we believe that such restrictions are detrimental and unsuitable to the growing interest of our Province, and we therefore hope that your Honourable Body w i l l pass Mr. Nason's Amendment. (Journals. 1 8 9 2 , p. ci.) A similar petition from the same d i s t r i c t , signed by 11 others was read and received. (Journals. 1 8 9 2 , p. ci.) A similar petition from the City of New Westminster signed by 56 persons was read and received. (Journals. 1 8 9 2 , p. ci.) Petition from R. S. Rendall and 1512 others was read and received re: Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable Body w i l l not, during i t s present Session, pass any measure that will permit the re-opening of the saloons on the Sunday of each week. (Journals. I 8 9 2 , p. c i i i . ) A similar petition from residents of Victoria, signed "by 213 persons was read and received. (Journals. 1 8 9 2 , p. c i i i . ) A similar petition from the executive officers of the Grand Lodge of the Province of British Columbia on behalf of i t s almost 2000 members against the amendment on Sunday opening, was read and received. (Journals, 1 8 9 2 , p. cv.) A similar petition from A. E. Green and 209 others was read and received. (Journals. 1 8 9 2 , p. 6 5 . ) Petition from Samuel Handy, A. C. McAlpin and 1200 others supporting the amendment was read and received. (Journals. I 8 9 2 , p. 7 1 . ) 217 1 8 9 3 : Petition from the ¥. C. T. U. and the Independent Order of Good Templars (I. 0 . G. T.) was read and received re: . . . humbly request that the "Municipal Act, 1 8 9 2 , " be so amended as that the Board of Licensing Commissioners for each Municipality may, in addition to the Mayor or Reeve of the Municipality, be composed of men elected annually by the direct vote of the people for that office, this being, in our opinion, the only f a i r way to constitute the Board. (Journals. I 8 9 3 , p. c i i i . ) A similar petition from the Grand Council of Royal Templars of Temperance of B.C. was read and received. (Journals, 1 8 9 3 , p. cv.) 1 8 9 k : Petition from G. C. Sauer and 67 others was read and received re: . . . Therefore we ask that you w i l l be pleased to amend the law so that the closed hours in this particular shall be from six o'clock on Sunday morning u n t i l one o'clock in the after-noon, and from 6 o'clock p.m. to 9 o'clock p.m. of the same day. . . . (Journals. 1 8 9 k , p. l x x x i i i . ) 1 8 9 5 : Petition from the officers of the Grand Lodge of the I. 0 . G. T. on behalf of i t s 2000 members was read and received re: . . . that the present License Law, while an.-improvement, does not enforce the closing of saloons and bar-rooms on the Sabbath Day, but simply says they shall not s e l l intoxicating liquors, which makes i t very d i f f i c u l t to convict under said law. . . . Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable Body w i l l , during i t s present Session, enact such a law as w i l l enforce the closing of a l l saloons and bar-rooms from seven o'clock on Saturday night of each and every week, and remain closed u n t i l the following Monday morning at seven o'clock of each and every week, and that a l l lights be extinguished. . . . (Journals, 1 8 9 5 , p. xxix.) Petition from the Executive Temperance Association, Vancouver, was read and received re: . . . During the present Session of Parliament, your Honourable Body w i l l enact such a law as w i l l make the requirements for renewal of license, especially i n rural districts similar to the requirements for the obtaining of a new license. . . . (Journals, 1 8 9 5 , p. l i x . ) 218 Petition from the Sumas Lodge of I. 0. G. T. was read and received re: . . . we c a l l the attention of Your Legislative Body to the provision in the "Municipal Act" permitting the using of Club Licenses within rural municipalities i s detrimental to the best interests of society, and said licenses, for legitimate business, are only intended for c i t i e s . And would request Your Honourable House to amend said Act as to said provision. (Journals. 1895, p. lxxv.) Petition from the Perseverance Lodge No. 1, I. 0. G. T. was read and received re: . . . regret that a B i l l is now before the House to amend the present r e t a i l Liquor License Act, by granting licenses to the premises instead of to the person, which would practically make i t a vested right. Your petitioners would therefore request your Honourable Body not to pass any such B i l l , as i t would take away the rights of the people i n the l o c a l i t y where such licenses are granted, and would also make i t impossible to cancel a license in the case of a tenant violating the law, as the license would be on the premises instead of being held by the person as at present. (Journals, 1895, p. cvii.) A similar petition from the officers and members of Dominion Lodge No. 5, of the I. 0. G. T. representing 75 voters was read and received. (Journals. 1895, p. cxxxv.) I 8 9 6 : Petition from 296 residents of the Municipality of Chilliwack was read and received re: 1. That the people of this Municipality are emphatically opposed to permitting the t r a f f i c in intoxicating liquors to obtain a footing here as evidenced by their refusal to grant a licence. 2. That there i s intense feeling against and dissatisfaction with "Clubs" as conducted in this Municipality. We have the t r a f f i c without any restrictions. Therefore, you (sic) petitioners humbly pray that the law be so amended that "Clubs" w i l l not be allowed in Rural Municipalities. (Journals. 1895, p. lxv.) 219 Petition from a committee of the Perseverance Lodge, No. 1 , I. 0 . G. T. of Victoria representing 100 members was read and received re: . . . Your petitioners have seen with regret that an amendment to the Licence Law, whereby the saloons w i l l be open certain hours on the Sunday of each week, is to be brought before your Honourable Body. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable Body w i l l not during the present Session pass any measure that w i l l permit the re-opening of the saloons on the Sunday of each week. (Journals. 1 8 9 6 , p. lxxxv.) A similar petition was read and received from W. W. Columbia, Bishop's Close, Victoria, J. Nicolaye, Administrator of Vancouver Island, W. Leslie Clay, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. (Journals. 1 8 9 6 , p. lxxxv). A similar petition was read and received from S. Cleaver, Pastor of Metropolitan Methodist Church, J. Campbell, Pastor First Presbyterian Church, J. F. Betts., Pastor Centennial Methodist Church, E. Manuel, Pastor Methodist Church, Duncan's, Ralph W. Trotter, Pastor Calvary Church. A similar petition on behalf of the Victoria W. C. T. U. was read and received. (Journals. I 8 9 6 , p. Ixxxvii.) I 8 9 6 : A petition on behalf of ¥. J. White and 9650 others was read and received re: 1 . That a l l screens and curtains shall be removed from saloon windows and doors, so that there may be no obstruction to carrying out the present law. 2. That the side or back doors shall be closed to the public and no entertaining room In the rear of buildings, as may of the minors of our fair land are being made drunkards in violation of the law through these sources. 3. That the liquor licence be taken entirely from the grocers. (Journals. 1 8 9 6 , p. lxxv.) 1897: Petition on behalf of the Vernon Local Council of Women, on behalf of 800 women was read and received re: . . . Therefore, we humbly pray your Honourable Body to make the study of Scientific Temperance in our Public Schools compulsory, and examinations therein necessary for promotion to higher grades. (Journals, 1 8 9 7 , p. xci.) 220 A similar petition was read and received from the Vancouver Local Council of Women. (Journals. 1 8 9 7 , p. xci.) A similar petition was received from the W. C. T. U.'s of B.C. and signed on behalf of i t s k 0 0 members by i t s president. (Journals. 1 8 9 7 , p. xci.) I 8 9 8 : None. I 8 9 9 : Petition on behalf of Green and Martin and 1$ other hotel proprietors was read and received re: . . . to so amend the law governing r e t a i l liquor licences 1 . That the party actually vending under licence shall be the holder or licencee. 2 . That a landlord or owner of premises used as a saloon or hotel shall not be the holder of the licence unless actually vending under said licence and being in possession of premises licensed. (Journals. 1 8 9 9 , p. x l i . ) A petition on behalf of Mary Walls, Balmoral Hotel and 21 other hotel owners that the law stand re licencing the premises and not amendment to the present law be passed, was read and received. (Journals. 1 8 9 9 , P. x l i i i . ) 1 9 0 0 : None. 1901: None. 1 9 0 2 : None. 1 9 0 3 : Petition on behalf of A. McNaughton and others re amendments to the Liquor Licence Act was read and received. (Text not given.) (Journals. 1 9 0 3 , p. 8 2 . ) 1 9 0 3 - 0 k / l 9 0 9 : None. 221 APPENDIX II EXCERPTS from travelogues describing the drinking habits in areas i n B.C. in the l860's and l 8 8 0's. "The lowest depth of a l l is reached in the 'Saloon1 of the western 'city 1 or miner's camp. This is simply a drinking-shop, where very ardent liquids are dispensed at a price which one would suppose would rapidly lead to fortune. No doubt i t would do so, were i t not for the proprietor being compelled to drink so much of his own merchandise as a guarantee of good faith, that his constitution always 'caves in' just before affluence is attained. A saloon seems to be the very f i r s t need of any c i v i l i s e d community out West; i n fact we passed one place which consisted entirely of a saloon, the rest being l e f t to the imagination. . . . It i s at such places that most of the rows commence which occasionally chase away the ennui of a backwoods l i f e . " (J. A. Lees and W. J. Clutterbuck, B. C. 1887. A Ramble in British  Columbia. London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1892, pp. 29 -30. ) "On waking i n the morning I presented myself at the bar, and received the customary 'cocktail'. . . . The average Victorian's sense of b l i s s apparently consists of the largest possible number of drinks i n the shortest possible time. . . . " (Ibid., pp. kk - k 5 . ) "Yale was a l i v e l y l i t t l e place. . . . The bar-rooms, with the nevertheless absent b i l l i a r d tables, were as numerous as ever; and I noticed that the farther we travelled on so the quality of the liquor deteriorated, and the capacity of the people for swallowing i t increased. So soon as a bargain was struck in one of the stores, i t s r a t i f i c a t i o n in alcohol seemed to be necessary." (Ibid., pp. 6 8 - 6 9 . ) "The town (Williams Creek) comprised the ordinary series of rough wooden shanties, stores, restaurants, grog shops and gambling saloons;. . . ." (Ibid., p. 1 1 5 . ) "One morning before breakfast the Honourable and I were taking our cocktail at the bar,. . . . " (Ibid.. P. 19k.) "It seemed strange to one when I f i r s t went to America to drink tea or coffee with every meal; but i t is the custom there, and you hardly ever see an American or Canadian drink beer or wine with his dinner. A l l their libations of that sort are taken at the 'bar' probably out of respect to the ladies; for i t is considered a heinous offence against public morals that 222 a lady should be anything but a teetotaller. I am afraid this Idea tends to more cupboard-practice than is good, . . . Happily these puritannical notions are now wearing out in the higher circles of American society; . . . " (R. Byron Johnson, Very Far West  Indeed; A Few Rough Experiences on the North-West  Pacific Coast. London, Sampson, Law, Marston, Law and Searle, 1 8 7 2 , pp. Ik6'-lj.7.) APPENDIX III LETTERS re McBride's decision to have a local option plebiscite. 29li/09 (copy) Wattsburg British Columbia March 23rd, 1909 The Hon. Richard McBride Premier Victoria, B.C. My dear Mr. McBride, Allow me to congratulate you. You are certainly an adept in diplomacy; your, decision on the treatment of the local option and timber licence questions is ingenious, pleases the majority and offends nobody, shifts the onus on other shoulders. A. E. Watts (signed) Coleman, Alberta 310/09 (copy) April 2nd, 1909 Personal The Hon Richard McBride Victoria, B.C. Dear Sir, Enclosed you w i l l find a clipping from the platform of the Conservative Party of Alberta, also the election results. Judging from these, the people of Alberta are not prepared at the present time to confiscate the hotel property of the Province to satisfy the demands of a few caricature speakers of the " B i l l y Sunday" order. The Conservatives told the hotel keepers that this plank did not mean anything but that they put i t in the platform just because they put i t in . They told a l l the Temperance cranks i n the country that they would wipe every hotel out of existence If they could just put the plevescite (sic) vote through. . . they wrote letters to preachers, etc., calling their attention to this particular point, but i t evidently did not take with the thinking class. Lloyd A Manly (signed) 223 224 Copy of the platform of the Provincial Conservative Association adopted i n Convention at Red Deer, 12th and 1 3 t h , February, 1909 and referred to i n above letter: 2. Prohibition: This Convention pledges the Conservative party to submit to the vote of the electors of the Province the question of prohibiting the sale of and t r a f f i c in intoxicating liquors in the Province, and to pass an Act for the total prohibition of the liquor t r a f f i c i n this Province to the f u l l extent of the Provincial power in that respect i f upon the taking of such a plebiscite 60 per cent, of the vote cast i s cast in favor of such Act. Result of election: (Letter 29^/09 of Watts to McBride and Letter 310/09 of Manly to McBride in the McBride papers, Provincial Archives, Victoria, B.C.) Liberals Conservatives Deferred election Independents Socialists 35 2 2 1 1 I f f APPENDIX IV COPY of a pro-local option advertisement which appeared in the Daily News-Advertiser. (Vancouver), November 21, 1909. When you vote for your candidates on Thursday next do not neglect to vote on the Local Option Plebiscite, for i f you do you w i l l count as one on the other side. A majority of the ballots cast for candidates is necessary to carry. The plebiscite is as f a i r to the liquor men as to the temperance men. It asks: Are you in favor of a Local Option Law being given to the people that they may have the right to say yea or nay, in their own town, city or d i s t r i c t , to the licensed liquor traffic? Your answer w i l l be: Yes, I want that right for myself. Mark your ballot thus: FOR X AGAINST Conservatives, Liberals, Laborites and Socialists can a l l cast this vote without i t affecting party. It is the principle of the referendum and the common right of every elector. Do not be misled. It is not Local Option, but a vote to say whether I want a Local Option Law or not. 225 APPENDIX V LETTER to McBride from the Bishop of Caledonia describing the confusion over the plebiscite: Letter 1239/09 (copy) "We have not yet heard the f i n a l result of the Local Option Plebiscite but there was the utmost d i f f i c u l t y to explain the matter to the electors. Local Option was taken as a synonym of Prohibition. The opposition statement that i t meant the overturning of the present license system, inste of simply the insertion of a Local Option Section into the present License Act, was believed by many. This ought to be taken into consideration. F i f t y per cent, of the total votes cast for the candidates was a tremendous handicap. The principle of referendum cannot be shackled by such a weight. The plebiscite was to express public opinion upon a most sane and moderate measure - the right of the municipality, or local i t y . " (Letter 1239/09 of F. H. Duvernet, Bishop of Caledonia to McBride, December 1 , 1 9 0 9 . ) 226 APPENDIX VI RESULTS of the Local Option Plebiscite, November 25, 1909. Majority Against For Against Constituency For Victoria 2392 Vancouver 5672 New Westminster 852 Chilliwack 765 Richmond 905 Saanich 385 Okanagan 1271 Grand Forks 582 Fernie 771 Dewdney Delta 637 Alberni 287 Kamioops 699 Rossiand 318 Columbia 2k8 Kaslo 21*14. Skeena 820 Revelstoke 523 Atlin 68 Esquimalt 312 Cowichan 286 Islands 203 Newcastle 305 Nanaimo 528 Comox kkk Cariboo 163 L i l l o e t i l l Yale 279 Similkameen 271 Greenwood 235 Slocan 252 Yrair k88 Nelson k86 Cranbrook 602 Totals 22,779 1796 597 k898 77k 3k8 5pk 317 kk8 6kk 261 276 109 1106 165 338 2kk 666 105 396 80 J4.89 l k 8 191 95 577 92 250 68 19k 5k 18k kO k l 9 koi 507 16 73 5 330 18 265 2 1 210 7 35k 692 16k 51k 70 199 36 168 57 305 26 281 10 238 3 258 6 k92 k k99 13 610 8 19,08k k,200 505 Net majority for Local Option was 3,695. (Letter 292/10 of Spencer to McBride, January 31, 1910.) 227 APPENDIX VII EXCERPTS from a personal letter from Spencer to McBride re the plebiscite and local option law. " . . . Lately and now the paper cry i s we agreed on the conditions of the plebiscite vote and now object. You and I know very well we had no agreement on the question, but that my League loyally submitted and not agreed with those conditions. . . . he believed McBride to be sincere when he stated he would abide by the w i l l of the majority—and that the $0 per cent, clause was the plan of another's. . . . The irregularities were many. I have many pages, but have not yet published them. In brief allow me to state a few: 1. In many places the ballotts (sic) were not handed unless asked for, and so hundreds were lost to us. In Victoria, despite Mr. Baxter's promises, the arrangement was a hindrance and we had even to demand the removal of a drunken deputy. The ballotts (sic) here were not stamped. At Vancouver no scrutineers were allowed, except for candidates. In the recount wherever a fair (next word i l l e g i b l e ) man was deputy we had a good majority, because the ballotts (sic) were handed out. Several times our men had to request the Returning Officer to command they be given out. Your own member Dr. McGuire had to ask for his. 2. In Abbottsford (sic), Pearsonville and Matsqui there was a shortage of ballotts ( s i c ) . We consider we lost 50-60 here. In Yale If? ballotts (sic) were refused by the R. 0. because they were stamped. W. I. Lehman is our informant. In Cranbrook Rev. W. King states that the liquor party had (word ill e g i b l e ) booth in the basement of the (two words i l l e g i b l e ) were (sic) the ballotting (sic) took place. A l l the spoiled ballotts (sic) of the Columbia are not i n and not really known. In Dewdney at several places - Hammond and Haney the voters had to ask for their ballotts (sic) and replied to by sneers. At Greenwood we know the foreigners did not understand and kept their ballotts (sic). But in Grand Porks and Phoenix over $0 per cent, was gained through the fairness of the Deputies. Prom Rash comes a very unpleasant statement made by one of your party which did not help the voters to vote for a local option law. At Ferguson, the R. 0. refused to count a ballott (sic) because the voter did not vote for either candidate. In New Westminster a good vote was registered because a fair-minded R. 0. was appointed. In Newcastle and Nanaimo misrepresenta-tion by both candidates cost us votes, one of whom has a 228 229 correction to make in the House. In the Okanagan strong objection was raised on the question of a plebiscite and i t s conditions without prior legislation. At Ymir the ballott (sic) was not given out unless asked for. Kindly permit me dear Mr. Premier to further point out that proper instructions were not given in time and you w i l l remember Mr. Buchanan asking that i t be done. I have a copy of the (word Illegible) which I got from the Kootenays. No "instructions" reached this office from the Government. Hence the 30 days knowledge of the conditions staggered every body and you w i l l remember J. L. Beckwirth's wire to you and your reply. With these facts and many others I could give, you w i l l see how easy i t was to be 500 behind. I also wish to say that the Skeena recount favor our lawyer's (two words i l l e g i b l e ) "15 outlying posts no ballotts (sic) were returned." The Members are not suffering thro' the loss of these or any others, but we are. Please, Mr. Premier, pardon the length of this letter (10 pages) and allow me ask you as a man, a gentleman, and our honoured Prime Minister, but more as a husband and a father to think of this question as i t relates to the conscience. . . . " (Letter 286/10 of Sepncer to McBride, February 1 0 , 1 9 1 0 . ) To which McBride replied: "I can assure you that the Government in causing the Plebiscite to be taken was actuated by a sincere desire to secure the views of the electorate on this subject and bound i t s e l f to abide by the decision arrived at. The conditions of the Plebiscite were considered f a i r and there was every desire to give the fullest f a c i l i t i e s for securing the voice of the people. In view of the result of the Plebiscite the Government was bound to accept the decision arrived at, just as i t would had the result been in favour of Local Option." (Letter 286/10 of McBride to Spencer, February lk, 1 9 1 0 . ) APPENDIX VIII LETTER of McBride to Stevenson of August 2 3 , 1 9 1 5 , explaining his decision to hold a plebiscite on the liquor question. "Having i n view the representations made to the members of the executive by a. deputation representing the Social Service Commission and my promise to give you an early answer, I have now the honor to submit a definite reply. We have been careful to consider the views presented by various persons and organizations, which on the main are somewhat divergent, and I desire to have this announcement, which'will be of a public nature, made public for the benefit of a l l concerned. In the resolutions appended to this letter i t i s asked that the government take steps to bring about the prohibition of the sale of liquor during the period of the war! It is also requested that such legislation shall not be repealed without a referendum! On the other hand, we have been asked that such legislation be not passed without the question be f i r s t submitted to the people in the form of a plebiscite. It seems to me that, logically, one proposition i s the converse of the other. On the one occasion the people of the province passed upon the question negatively, and since that time the government has had no contrary mandate from the electors. We recognize, however, that since the occurrence of the present war conditions which have arisen may have changed the attitude of the public of British Columbia towards this question, and this more particularly on account of the action taken i n other parts of Canada as something relating peculiarly to the present necessities. It has been decided, after careful deliberation, to submit the whole question to a plebiscite of the electorate. The date of taking the plebiscite w i l l be announced as soon as i t i s decided what shall form the basis of the referendum. I may say i t i s intended to direct the course of the legislation in this regard according to the general result of the vote to be taken." (Quoted from The World [Vancouver] August 2 k , 1 9 1 5 . ) 230 APPENDIX IX RESOLUTION adopted by the People's Prohibition Movement Convention and presented to Premier McBride i n August, 1915. "Whereas the e v i l arising out of the t r a f f i c in intoxicating liquors results in an economic waste, loss of efficiency and moral and social degradation; And whereas i t i s believed the sentiment in favour of the abolition of this t r a f f i c is predominant throughout the province of British Columbia; And whereas i t is the sense of this convention that the time is now ripe for a definite step to be taken in regard to the enactment of a prohibitory measure; And whereas the reply of the premier of the province to the delegation which waited upon him asking for a prohibitory measure did not state upon what the electorate would be asked to vote or the time at which the vote should be taken; Therefore, be i t resolved that the delegation from a l l parts of the province of British Columbia duly assembled in convention do hereby place themselves on record i n favor of the principle of prohibition and request the provincial government that they at the earliest date possible, present to the electorate of the province of British Columbia a b i l l to be taken by a committee of this convention similar in wording and in intent to that endorsed by the electors of Alberta on the 21st day of July, 1915, and entitled 'The Liquor Act 1; In the event of the said b i l l being approved by a majority of the electors of the province of British Columbia voting on the said measure the same to be enacted as law, to come into force not later than the last day of January, 1917? And be i t further resolved that i t i s the sense of this convention that the presentation to the electorate of the province of British Columbia of the aforesaid b i l l , shall not be made at the time of an election, this being an issue separate and distinct from party p o l i t i c s . " (Quoted from The World [Vancouver] August 27, 1915".) 231 APPENDIX X PETITION submitted by the Merchants Protective Association to Premier McBride on October k, 1915. " . . . your petitioners humbly pray: 1. That no prohibitory legislation be introduced during the war. 2. That no referendum or plebiscite on this question be submitted during the war. 3. That no prohibitory legislation be introduced without making adequate provision for compensation. k. That no referendum be submitted unless i t is understood as a condition that legislation following such referendum, in case the result shall be in favour of prohibition shall make adequate provision for compensation. 5. That no referendum shall be submitted except at a General Election for the said Province. (Paper 72/15 of the McBride collection in the Provincial Archives, Victoria, B.C.) 232 APPENDIX XI LETTER of McBride to Rogers (undated). " . . . There are two questions, mainly, to be considered: First, as to when the plebiscite should be submitted, and, second, what form i t should take. Your Committee expresses anxiety to have the reference to the people in respect of prohibition kept entirely free from party politics and for that purpose i t is suggested that the plebiscite should be taken on a day other than that of a general election. The Government wholly concurs in the advisability of the question being dealt with in a nonpartizan way, but, personally, I am inclined to think that much more satisfactory results would be obtained by the voting being concurrent. It does not in any way involve the mizing (sic?) up of Issues, and I have sufficient faith in the intelligence of the electors to believe that they can thoroughly discriminate. There are two reasons for submitting the plebiscite on the day of general elections. Owing to the interest excited in a p o l i t i c a l contest the maximum of votes is recorded, and what we particularly want is the fullest expression of public opinion. The danger i s that on a separate day the voting w i l l only bring out the extremes of both sides leaving a large mass of voters unrecorded. You w i l l agree with me that i t would be very unsatisfactory i f only about f i f t y per cent, of the electors should record their votes and a bare majority of these were to be cast on either side. A l l experience goes to show that a law that does not have a large and generous public opinion behind i t cannot be successfully enforced. The other consideration i s that of expense. It w i l l cost between $k0,000 and $50,000 to submit a plebiscite separately. However, these are not insuperable objections and w i l l be the subject of further consideration. As to the form of submission you wish a referendum i n the exact terms of a b i l l to be placed before the people, and an absolute response, yea or nay, to be registered. . There are, in my opinion, two fundamental objections to this proposal. In the f i r s t place, i t restricts the choice of the people to only one method of dealing with the liquor problem, whereas there may be effective methods of bringing about what prohibitionists have chiefly in view. An Act of Parliament may be inspired by a right principle, but may express i t badly. In the second place, I am opposed to the suggestion of direct legislation, which i s contrary to the s p i r i t of British representative institutions and responsible government. It is a form of legislative procedure growing up in the United States with very unsatisfactory and expensive results. What the 233 231+ government is desirous of ascertaining i s the wish of the people as a whole on various phases of the question involved, and what the people want we are prepared to carry out to the let t e r . If they emphatically declare for prohibition, my colleague, the Attorney-General, carry i t out without fear or favor, and therefore, the form of the plebiscite must be such as to indicate clearly what is the public wish and what is f a i r to a l l classes of the community. As soon as the form of reference is prepared an announcement w i l l be made. In the meantime you are quite at liberty to publish the correspondence. Yours fai t h f u l l y . R. McBride.f' (Letter 72/15 of the McBride collection i n the Provincial Archives, Victoria, B.C.) APPENDIX XII LETTERS to McBride re the Conservative Party and the prohibition issue. Fleet Surgeon W. E. Home, to McBride, August 3, 1915. "I don't know i f you are quite informed how strong feeling is on prohibition. Colonist and Times are both anti-prohibition, and exclude much information about i t . There is a majority for i t , I think, in the local main executive, and in a meeting of the Ward 3 executive last night (only 8, but our best workers) they were to my surprise a l l enthusiastic about the good that plank would do to-the party platform i n securing votes about which a l l were anxious. No question of prohibition when they were elected. . . . I doubt i f you give enough weight to the very striking action of the King and I'm not sure you recognize how l i t t l e the measure of the British Cabinet represented their desires. This letter I have mentioned to no one nor shall I. But I want the Party to come through. I fear reciprocity so much. -it -a- * x # -:c- # # -if-Alderman C. E. Mahon (Vancouver) to McBride, November 5, 1915. ". . . I am afraid that we are going to be unable to keep this question out of p o l i t i c s , as some of us have strived hard to do . . . . in fact there was a suggestion today that we should approach the other party and ask them to put a plank in their platform to that effect, which i f they do Sir Richard, they w i l l sure sweep the country, in spite of a l l we could do. I do feel Sir Richard that i f you would deside (sic) to say that you would at the next session of the Legislature bring down a Prohibatory (sic) B i l l similar to that coming into effect in the Province of Alberta, taking the responsibility on yourself, the same to take effect July 1st next year, and then -*• Chairman Ward 3, Conservative executive. McBride's reply to Home made no reference to a prohibition plank in the Conservative Party's platform. 235 236 appeal to the country on that alone that you would sweep the country again. I have heard some rabid Grits say they would support you i f you gave them prohibition. I have never heard as many men in both sides of pol i t i c s say "they would drop party this time for prohibition," as I have heard say that this summer, and from men that have never l e f t there (sic) party. I am very sincere in this matter, and think i t would be a master stroke. It would certainly knock some of these fellows off their pegs, such as Dr. McKay, Rev. Cook and others, as they would not have a leg to stand on and would be honor bound by their position to come in and support the Government. . . . You know I have always said that we had much smarter men in the good old party than they ever had among the Liberals, yet in the two Provinces East of us they have led in advanced prohibition measures." -1C- • * - » • * *x- X -55- * -x -r? McBride to Mahon, November 10, 1915. "I have your letter of November 5th, which was evidently written before my reply to the Prohibition Committee was published. I am sorry that I could not meet their views more closely, but i t is not a question of what I or you or the liquor people think is right, but what the people as a whole think, and what the majority of the people want the government is ready to carry out. (Letters' 72/15 of the McBride collection i n the Provincial Archives, Victoria, B.C.) APPENDIX XIII COPY of a "Confidential Memorandum for the Executive Council re Royal Commission to inquire into the financial hardships and losses alleged to have resulted from bringing into force the 'B.C. Prohibition Act'; I am advised by His Honor the Lt. Governor that he gave his consent to the introduction of this Act conditional upon a promise that a commission of inquiry would be appointed, and this statement of His Honor's is borne out by a letter written by the Hon. W. J. Bowser, Premier, under date of May 23rd, 1916, which reads as follows: 'I have the honor to submit herewith the B.C. Prohibition B i l l for the approval of Your Honor. I wish to draw your attention to Section 6l of the B i l l which provides that before i t becomes effective the consent of the electors is required which is to be taken at the time of the forth-coming General Election. In the event of the majority of the electors voting in favor of the measure I intend to recommend the appointment of a commission, probably composed of three judges of the Supreme Court, one representative of the Merchants Protective Association and one from the Prohibition Party, to investigate f u l l y a l l financial hardships of losses which i t may be contended w i l l result from bringing into force the Act, and who, after making f u l l inquiries, w i l l report their findings and • recommendations to the Government. I wish to further state that I propose on the second reading of the B i l l to make a statement covering the proposal to appoint said Commission.' I recall that at that time many of the Liberal candidates for election i n the 191° elections were requested to state their position in regard to this proposed Commission. Personally, I took the stand that any person who alleged they had suffered loss on account of the B.C. Prohibition Act should have an opportunity of proving their contentions, and I made this statement to the Electorate at the time of the election. I was very careful to refrain from stating that I would be in favor of paying compensation. I believe a great many of the Liberal candidates took a position similar to mine. 237 238 On March 27th, 1919, I received a communication from His Honor the Lt. Governor, reading as follows:-'Upon referring to the votes and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly I find that on Tuesday, the l8th ultimo, on page 8, i n reply to a question put by a member with reference to the appointment of a Commissioner to inquire into the question of compensation to those formerly engaged In the liquor business i n the Province on account of bringing into force the Prohibition Act, you replied that the Government had not reached a decision on the question. For your information, and in order that the matter may be on record, I beg to say that before assenting to the Prohibition Act and Referendum, 191b, I obtained a promise from Mr, Bowser that he would make a statement to parliament upon the introduction of the Act that, in the event of the Prohibition Act being brought into force, the Government would appoint a commission to inquire into and report upon the question of compensation to be paid to those formerly engaged in the liquor trade. Again, before I assented to the Prohibition Act of 1917, the late Premier, Mr. Brewster, stated that he was bound, he considered, by the pledge to parliament of the former Premier, to carry out the terms of such pledge, and would appoint the commission as promised. I assumed that when I asked you to undertake the responsibility of forming a Government, that you would feel as the late Mr. Brewster did that there was an obligation on the part of Government to f u l f i l l the conditions upon which the electorate were invited to express an opinion on this question.' to which I replied as follows:-'I am in receipt of your communication of this date re appointment of a commission to inquire into the question of compensation to those formerly engaged in the liquor business in the Province on account of bringing into force the Prohibition Act. I am aware that a commission of inquiry was promised by the Hon. W. J. Bowser, and I have no doubt your Honor is correct in that the late Premier, Hon. H. C. Brewster, considered that he was bound by the pledge made by the former Premier.: Personally, 239 I never have taken any other position than that there was an obligation resting upon the present Government at least to very carefully consider the appointment of the suggested commission. The only reason I had in delaying action has been I was convinced that the attitude of the present Legislature would be opposed to the payment of compensation. As Your Honor no doubt has observed there is a movement to again bring this matter before the Electorate, and I am very strongly impressed with the idea that i t probably w i l l be necessary again to submit the question to the Electorate during the year 1920. I also am impressed with the thought that i f a commission of inquiry into the matter of compensation is to be held the present Summer would be an opportune time to make the inquiry. However, I shall bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues within a very short time, when the question w i l l have very careful consideration and I w i l l advise Your Honor further after consultation with my colleagues. 1 I have taken the trouble to refer to the newspaper reports of the Speech delivered by Premier Bowser on the 2nd Reading of the Prohibition B i l l . The "Colonist" report reads as follows:-•Then there were the arguments advanced relative to vested interests, bad financial conditions, large outlays in building operations, furnishings and fixtures. He could, i n consequence, quite understand that people having money directly or indirectly involved should feel that they had a grievance. The Government had always made i t a rule that any person or body who felt he or i t had a grievance should have the opportunity to present i t . Accordingly i t was decided that i f the B i l l before the House should be approved by the people, that an investigation into the question of compensation should be held. There were at present many and varied claims running the gamut from expensive furnishings and fixtures, loss of profits, cancelled contracts for sales and purchases, hop contracts with breweries, covenants in leases, rentals, idle premises, etc. The Government has come to the conclusion that the fairest way would be to investigate by means of a commission composed of three judges and two others, one representing the Prohibitionists and one the liquor interests, so that both interests would be 2k0 represented and be in a position to see that a proper inquiry was held. The commission would go f u l l y into the entire question, hear arguments for and against and submit i t s recommendations to the Government.1 The 'Times' report reads as follows:-'It seemed only f a i r , he said, that i f the Act passed there should be an inquiry into the whole matter of compensation of the various rights affected and the most intelligent way seemed to be by the appointment of a royal commission of three judges and two others, one representing the People's Prohibition Party and the other the liquor interests, in case the people approved the B i l l . In closing, Mr. Bowser stated that i f he remained attorney-general he could promise to give to the public the same careful enforcement of this Act as in every other act under his administration.' You w i l l note that i n my letter to His Honor I took the position that there was an obligation resting upon the present Government at least to carefully consider the appointment of the suggested commission. After mature consideration I cannot come to any other conclusion than that a Royal Commission should issue along the lines indicated in the letter of Premier Bowser to His Honor. I think that the present is a very opportune time for the appointment of this Commission. Undoubtedly there w i l l be very strong demand made at the next Session of the Legislature either for a total or partial repeal of the Prohibition Act. I am very decidedly of the opinion that, at some period during 1920, this question again w i l l have to be referred to the electors of the Province for their decision. I recommend the appointment of the Commission i f the same appeals to your best judgments. John Oliver." (signed) (Prom the uncatalogued Pattullo Papers kept in the Provincial Archives, Victoria, B.C.) 2kl APPENDIX XIV WHEREAS a plebiscite was taken in the Province of British Columbia in October, 1920, on the following questions:— WHICH DO YOU PREFER? 1. The present "Prohibition Act"? or 2. An Act to provide for Government Control and Sale in Sealed Packages of Spirituous and Malt Liquors? AND WHEREAS the vote was strongly in favour of Government Control and Sale: AND WHEREAS as a result of the said plebiscite there was passed by the Legislature of this Province the "Government Liquor Act": AND WHEREAS eighteen months of administration under that Act has demonstrated the necessity for the prohibition of the Importation of liquor into this Province by other than the Provincial Government in order to accomplish the effective working of the said Act: AND WHEREAS Federal legislation to that end was sought at the meeting of the Federal Parliament in the spring of 1922, and the said proposed legislation met with the unanimous approval of the House of Commons, but was defeated in the Senate at the close of i t s Session when many Senators were not present: AND WHEREAS i t i s desirable that this Province again seek the enactment of the proposed legislation: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Federal Parliament be requested at its next sittings to enact legislation providing for the prohibition of the importation of intoxicating liquor Into British Columbia for use therein except by the Provincial Government; such legislation to be for the purpose of supplementing and giving effect to the aforementioned "Government Liquor Act" and to be contingent upon and to exist only during i t s continuance. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that an humble Address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying that he w i l l cause a copy of the preamble and Resolution hereinbefore set out to be transmitted to the Hon. the Secretary of State at Ottawa. 242 The House divided, and the Resolution was carr on the following d i v i s i o n : — YEAS — 30 NAYS — lk (B.C. Journals. 1922, vol. LI, p. Ik3.) APPENDIX XV A MOTION moved by Mr. Guthrie (Socialist) as follows: "That this Legislature resolve i t s e l f into a Committee of the Whole House to consider the question of State health insurance, with a view to discussing the advisability of appointing a Committee to bring i n a B i l l before the close of this Session of the House" was amended by Premier Oliver to read: "WHEREAS at an Industrial Conference held at the City of Ottawa, at which representatives of both the Dominion and Provincial Governments were present, an understanding was arrived at to the effect that legislation dealing with the questions of health and unemployment insurance and old-age pensions belonged to the Federal Parliament: AND WHEREAS the National Liberal Convention held in the City of Ottawa in August, 1919, resolved that, in so far as practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other di s a b i l i t i e s (which would include old-age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits) should be instituted by the Federal Government in conjunction with the Governments of the several Provinces: AND WHEREAS the Province of B.C. has provided for a system of mothers' pensions at a cost of approximately $500,000 annually: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That this House urge upon the Government of Canada to give early consideration to legislation providing for an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence i n old age, and other d i s a b i l i t i e s . AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That an humble Address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying that he w i l l cause to be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Canada the foregoing preamble and Resolution." The amended Resolution carried on division k0/5. (B.C., Journals. 1922, pp. 138-kO.) 2k3 APPENDIX XVI A MOTION moved by Mr. Colley (Liberal), seconded by Dr. Wrinch (Liberal), as follows: "WHEREAS, under the 'Public Inquiries Act,' a Commission was appointed on November 19th, 1919, to inquire into the subject of health insurance and maternity benefits, and particularly as to how far they were being put into operation i n any other country or province: AND WHEREAS this Commission submitted an exhaustive report upon these two subjects to the Legislature on March l 8 , 1921: AND WHEREAS, while this Commission recommended as i t s considered opinion that i t was desirable that a measure of benefits under some method of health insurance as well as a system of maternity benefits would be of advantage to the people of the Province of British Columbia: AND WHEREAS, on account of the heavy financial cost of i n i t i a t i n g and carrying out as thorough a system of health insurance as i t considered would be required by the people of that Province, and for other reasons, the Government of this Province has not deemed i t wise up to the present time to introduce such a scheme of health insurance or of maternity benefits: AND WHEREAS i t would appear that there is now a much more general demand for such a provision to be made to conserve the health of the people of this Province, as is shown by the numerous appeals from widely differentiated sources of origin that are being made to the Government for such legislation: BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, That a Committee of this Legislative Assembly, consisting of five members, be appointed, whose duties shall be to: (1) Inquire into the workings of any systems of health insurance and of maternity benefits wherever such systems can be found in effective operation; (2) to report its findings to this Legislature.'" The Resolution carried unanimously. (B.C. Journals, 1928, pp. 175-6.) 2kk APPENDIX XVII A MOTION moved by Mr. Wrinch (Liberal) was amended by Mr. Rutledge (Conservative), as follows: "It i s advisable, i n the interests of the people of this Province, that this Legislature should be in possession of authentic, f u l l , and up-to-date information regarding the subjects of maternity benefits and health insurance: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That a humble petition be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying that a Commission composed of members of the Legislature, who shall serve without salary, be appointed under the 'Public Inquiries Act 1 to inquire as to what laws relating to the subjects of maternity benefits and health insurance are in force in other Provinces of Canada or any other countries; to collect facts as to the actual operation of such laws and as to how far they have been found satisfactory; to inquire as to whether and to what extent the public interest requires the introduction of similar laws into the Province of British Columbia; to estimate what would be the total annual cost to the people of the Province of British Columbia; to estimate what would be the total annual cost to the people of the Province i n regard to each of these subjects, and what portion of the annual cost would f a l l upon (a) employers of labour, (b) prospective beneficiaries, and (c) the general taxpayers; to suggest methods by which the annual cost might be collected from the employers, prospective beneficiaries, and general taxpayers respectively; and generally to inquire into any or a l l matters affecting the said subjects respectively; and to report i t s findings and recommendations to this Legislature at i t s next Session." The amended Resolution carried unanimously. (B.C. Journals. 1929, p. 2k.) 2,45 APPENDIX XVIII ORDER-IN-COUNCIL setting up the Royal Commission on State Health Insurance and Maternity Benefits: "His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor i n Council has been pleased to appoint Cyril Francis Davie, Barrister, of Duncan (Chairman); William Farris Kennedy, of Vernon; Lorris E. Borden, M. D., C. M., of Nelson; George Sharratt Pearson, of Nanaimo; and John Joseph G i l l i s , M. D., C. M., of Merritt, Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, Commissioners under the 'Public Inquiries Act' to inquire as to what laws relating to the subjects of maternity benefits and health insurance are i n force i n other Provinces of Canada or any other countries; to collect facts as to the actual operation of such laws and as to how far they have been found satisfactory; to inquire as to whether and to what extent the public interest requires the introduction of similar laws into the Province of B.C.; to estimate what would be the total annual cost to the people of the Province i n regard to each of these subjects, and what portion of the annual cost might be collected from the employers, prospective beneficiaries, and general taxpayers respectively; and generally to inquire into any or a l l matters affecting the said subjects respectively; and to report i t s findings and recommendations to the Legislative Assembly of the Province of B.C. at i t s next Session." (B.C. Gazette, vol. LXIX, no. 17, April 25, 1929, p. 1^72.) 2ii6 APPENDIX XIX A MOTION moved by Mrs. Steeves (C. C. p.), as follows: "WHEREAS 'An Act to provide for the Establishment of a Provincial System of Health Insurance' was passed by the Legislature on March 31st, 1936; and WHEREAS Health Insurance progressively applied was endorsed by a majority vote of the people of British Columbia in a plebiscite submitted to them on June 1st, 1937; and WHEREAS the Government has not brought the provisions of the 'Health Insurance Act' into operation; and WHEREAS i t has been reported to the public press on October 12th, 1937, that the Premier stated that Health Insurance,would not be brought into operation u n t i l the Rowell Commission had reported; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That this Legislature is of the opinion that the Government has forfeited the confidence of the people i n neglecting to put the 'Health Insurance Act' into operation." Motion debated but negatived on division 7/33. (B.C. Journals. 1937, p. 58.) IN DEBATE on Speech from the Throne, Mr. Guthrie (C. C. P.) moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. E. E. Winch (C..C. P.), to add the following words: "This House regrets that the Speech from the Throne conveyed no intimation of the Government's intention, at the present Session of the Legislature, to implement the expressed w i l l of the citizens by placing into effectual operation the principles of an actuarially sound Health Insurance Act, progressively applied, as endorsed by referendum of the electorate of this Province." Motion negatived on the following division: 13/27. (B. C. Journals. 1938, p. 16-17.) 2k7 2k8 A MOTION on the Order Paper of Mrs. Steeves (C. C. P.), was ruled out of order: "WHEREAS the Prime Minister has stated that the •Health Insurance Act' i s not being put into operation because the Government is waiting for the report to the Rowell Commission: AND WHEREAS i n the brief presented by the Government to the Rowell Commission no request i s made that health insurance become a matter of Federal jurisdiction and no specific request is made for a Federal conditional grant for health insurance: AND WHEREAS there i s complete unanimity amongst a l l representative groups of the people of British Columbia on the matter of the urgent necessity of health insurance for this Province: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That a Select Committee of this House be set up to inquire into a l l possible ways and means of making health insurance, on a sound actuarial basis, operative in B. C, and report the result of i t s findings to this House." ^B.C Journals. 1938, p. 8k-85.) A MOTION moved by Mrs. Steeves (C. C. P.), as follows: "WHEREAS by referendum vote of the electorate of this Province a considerable majority voted in favor of a 'comprehensive Health Insurance plan progressively applied 1: AND WHEREAS effective action to implement the expressed w i l l ,of the people has not been undertaken: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That this House is of the opinion that the Government should immediately take steps to make Health Insurance operative i n this Province." Motion ruled out of order as involving an impost on the people. (B. C. Journals, 1939, p. 9k.) 249 A MOTION moved by Mrs. Steeves (C. C. P.), as follows: "WHEREAS by a referendum vote of the electorate of this Province in 1937 a considerable majority voted in favour of 'a comprehensive Health Insurance Plan progressively applied': AND WHEREAS no effective action has been taken by the Government to implement this expression of opinion by the people: AND WHEREAS war conditions have made the need for effective medical services for a l l more acute: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That this House is of the opinion that the Government should take under immediate consideration the implementation of a Provincial Health Insurance system." Motion ruled out of order, not competent for a Private Member, as involving expenditure of public money. (B.C. Journals. 19ij.l-.k2, p. 98.) A MOTION moved by Mrs. Steeves (C. C. F.), as follows: "WHEREAS the Federal Government has not established a national health plan: AND WHEREAS Canada lags behind Great Britain and other British Dominions in provision of national health services: AND WHEREAS organized labour has demanded that preventative and curative health services be supplied to a l l through a national health insurance plan: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That this Legislature endorse the principle of free curative and preventative health services to a l l and petition the Dominion Government to institute such a national health plan. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Provincial Health Insurance Commission be instructed to formulate a Provincial Health Insurance plan i n order that the Province may consider ways and means of instituting a Provincial health plan i f a national health service i s not established i n the near future." Motion ruled out of order as involving expenditure of public money; ruling supported on division, 26/15'. (B.C. Journals. 19k5", pp. 117-18.) APPENDIX XX ORDER-IN-COUNCIL providing for the "Liquor Plebiscite, 1952": "WHEREAS in and by section k of the 'Liquor-control Plebiscites Act,' being chapter 193 of the 'Revised Statutes of British Columbia, I9J4.8,' i t is provided that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall f i x by Proclamation the date for the taking of the vote on any question to be submitted to the electors under the provisions of the said Act and shall order the issue of writs in Her Majesty's name for taking the vote, and shall f i x the date for the return of the Writs; and WHEREAS Our said Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice of Our Executive Council, has been pleased to direct by Order in Council in that behalf that the following question be submitted to a vote of the electors of a l l the electoral districts of the Province:— 'Are you in favour of the sale of spirituous liquor and wine by the glass i n establishments licensed for such purpose?' and that the date of taking the said vote shall be Thursday, the twelfth day of June, 1952, and that Writs be issued accordingly, returnable on or before the t h i r t y - f i r s t day of July, 1952. NOW KNOW YE that We do by these presents proclaim and declare that the date for taking the vote of the electors of a l l the electoral di s t r i c t s of the Province on the aforementioned question shall be Thursday, the twelfth day of June, 1952, and that Writs be issued accordingly, returnable on or before the th i r t y - f i r s t day of July, 1952." (B.C. Gazette, vol. XCII, no. 17, April 2k, 1952, p. H 6 9 . ) 250 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106169/manifest

Comment

Related Items