UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Liberty and authority : civil liberties in Toronto, 1929-1935. Skebo, Suzanne Michello 1968

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 S54.pdf [ 9.5MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302262.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302262-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302262-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302262-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302262-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302262-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302262-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302262-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302262.ris

Full Text

LIBERTY AND 'AUTHORITY: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN TORONTO, 1929-1935 by Suzanne Michelle Skebo B.A., University of Toronto, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History We acaept this thesis as conforming to the required standard The University of British Columbia September, 1968 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo 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 Library.sha.il make i t f r e e l y , a v a i l a b l e f or reference and Study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission for 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 hils r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying or pub 1 i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f or f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ^ftjrf-, ABSTRACT Liberty and Authority:- Cavil Liberties in Toronto, 1929-1935 This thesis examines the practical implications of the acceptance of "traditional British liberties" in a particular Canadian city and period. The city of Toronto was chosen because i t was here that one found the loudest professions of admiration and reverence for "things British." The period, 1929-1935, the early years of the Great Depression, commended itself because the economic chaos and social tension of these years brought to the fore questions as to the meaning and relative value of liberty and authority. Consideration of the problem of liberty and authority from 1929-1935 also enables one to examine the less statistical, less tangible impact of the Great Depression on a segment of Canadian society. An attempt is made to examine the attitudes toward liberty and authority among particular groups in Toronto, and to analyse the basic assumptions and thought patterns that their attitudes appear to express. The thesis makes no attempt to consider specific issues from a purely legalistic or judicial point of view. Certain problems are endemic in an undertaking of this kind. The chief problem is the absence of any precise technique for evaluating objectively the impact of ideas.as motivating forces in history. An attempt is made to calculate the degree of support for particular opinions, such as those presented by the major newspapers, but only in a general fashion. What appear to be of more value and interest to the historian are the underlying assumptions behind the ideas expressed, in so far as they reflect the social,, political and economic attutudes of a particular period. Thus, the main emphasis i s upon the representative quality of the opinions expressed, rather than upon the discovery of the attitude of every sector of the c i t y . Four specific cases involving the respective l imits of l iber ty and authority are examined—the policy of the Toronto Board of Police Commis-sioners i n prohibiting certain kinds of meetings i n the streets, parks and halls of the c i t y , 1929-1933; Section 98 of the Criminal Code, and the conviction i n Toronto, under Section 98, of eight Communist leaders i n November, 1931; the sedition t r i a l of A. E . Smith, secretary of the Canadian Labor Defence League i n March, 1934; and the response to the Regina Riot of July, 1935. The reaction to these controversies was complex and diverse within Toronto. Large and important sectors of the c i t y , of which the Globe, the Telegram, and the Mail and Empire were the chief spokesmen, saw no question of the invasion of " t radi t ional B r i t i s h l i b e r t i e s , " but only the need for authority i n the face of disorder and i n s t a b i l i t y . The soap-box controversialists of Hyde Park might be acceptable i n England, a country with thousands of years of t radi t ion , but not i n Canada, a new country i n the midst of economic chaos—a new country with "foreign" elements i n the midst of i t s population. For much smaller numbers of Torontonians, of whom the Star, the Canadian Forum and the C. C. F . Party were the chief representatives, the cases examined clearly raised questions about the l iber ty of the individual i n the face of the authority of the state. In fact , the attitudes expressed by different sectors of the population reflected contradictory views of the potency and quality of the Russian Communist threat to Canadian society, of the needs dictated by the economic dislocation of the Great Depression, of the p o s s i b i l i t y and des i rabi l i ty of change and readaptation in the Canadian economic, political and social structure. Further, the attitudes expressed on liberty and authority revealed assumptions about the position of the intellectual in public affairs and the changing nature of government activity in the l i f e of the nation. Even among those who could at least agree that an invasion of the rights of the individual had occurred, there was l i t t l e consensus as to the precise methods to be employed so as to effect a change in governmental policy. Close examination of the problem of c i v i l liberties in Toronto reveals that no real consensus existed as to the precise meaning and implications of "traditional British liberties," and the issue failed to emerge as a black-and-white political question. In part, the phrase "traditional British liberties" served as an umbrella term for the expression of class attitudes toward liberty and authority, but its use was far more complex than a simple class interpretation would imply. The phrase "traditional British liberties" served to express particular attitudes and assumptions towards liberty and authority that reflected peculiarly Canadian needs and conditions. In effect, both sides of the controversy were attempting to define "Canadianism." Examination of the question of liberty and authority in Toronto further reveals that the major Canadian response to the Great Depression weighted the scales heavily on the side of authority; however, a cr i t i c a l spirit, characteristic of modern urban communities^ did gain momentum during the Depression^and, through its assertion on such occasions as the sedition t r i a l of A. E. Smith and the conviction of the eight Communist leaders, i t served to widen the practical limits of liberty in Canada. 1 LIBERTY AND AUTHORITY: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN TORONTO, 1929-1935 City of goodness I smugly by the lake, No spirit in Montgomery's Tavern seems to wake. Matthews and Lount are swinging in the wind, Unnoticed where Melinda's can is dinned. Gourlayl Mackenzie! can you not hear my call? Is Freedom dead - and no God after all? Cyril Malcom Lapointe (Canadian Forum. October, 1931) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. THE CANADIAN LEGAL INHERITANCE 8 III. TORONTO IN THE 1920*s and 1930»s 19 IV. FREEDOM OF SPEECH 30 V. SECTION 98 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE 45 VI. THE SEDITION TRIAL OF A. E. SMITH AND THE REGLNA RIOT 57 VII. THE COMMUNIST MENACE 7 0 VIII. THE DEPRESSION PHENOMENON g 2 IX. METHODS OF PROTEST 94 X. CONCLUSION 99 NOTES 1 0 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 \ 3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist with-out discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, a) the right of the individual to l i f e , liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, . . . b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; c) freedom of religion; d) freedom of speech; e) freedom of assembly and association; and f) freedom of the press. 1 Most scholars who have examined and commented on the Canadian constitutional structure and the evolution of Canada from colony to nation have tended to accept this section of the Canadian B i l l of Rights as an accurate description of Canadian conditions, past and present. Indeed, there has existed a marked tendency to note—and to applaud—the fine 2 balance created between liberty and authority in the Canadian nation. According to popular mythology, a tradition of law and order had become firmly entrenched that was frequently in sharp contrast to the traditions of its more unruly neighbour to the south. "Seemingly, however, law and order had been achieved without- sacrificing the ideal of the liberty of the individual in its relation to the authority of the state—an ideal which lay at the base of both British and American theories of govern-ment. In 1924, Viscount Bryce wrote concerning CanadaTs juxtaposition of liberty and authority: Law and order are fully secured everywhere even in the wildest parts of the West. . . . The judiciary is able and respected. Criminal justice is dispensed promptly, 4 efficiently and impartially. . . . The spirit of license, a contempt of authority, a negligence in enforcing the laws have been so often dwelt upon as characteristic of democracy that their absence from Canada is a thing of which she may well be proud. . . . . There are those who regard the prohibition of the sale of intoxicants as an inroad upon individual liberty, however great the benefit to the community. Apart from that controversial matter, the citizen is nowhere not even in Britain and the United States, better guaranteed in the enjoyment of his private c i v i l rights. The Executive interferes as l i t t l e as possible with him. Neither does public opinion. 3 It had been continuously asserted that the key to that fine balance lay in the whole-hearted Canadian acceptance of the "traditional charters of British liberty." The Canadian confederation of 1867 produced no written charter guaranteeing the specific British traditions that bore direct relevance to the problem of the liberty of the individual and the authority of the state, yet the preamble of the British North America Act implicitly laid the foundations for the acceptance of those traditions developed in English parliamentary and common law: Whereas the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. . . . A practical examination of the relationship between liberty and authority in Canadian society has seldom been undertaken by Canadian historians. That the ideal of a fine balance and its reality were not always in accord in Canada, however, was suggested by F. R. Scott in the proceedings of the Special Committee on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in lQ60,,when he commented on the validity of the first section of the Canadian B i l l of Rights that has been quoted above: I do not know what the purpose of making this legislative li e i s , but i t is a complete untruth. These freedoms have 5 not always existed in Canada. . . . One does not have to go very far back in our history to find times when the freedom mentioned here did not exist. 4 In effect, Professor Scott questioned whether the precise balance of liberty and authority within Canadian society had always existed. In the view of several authors, further instances of a dichotomy between the ideal and the reality of the Canadian liberal tradition emerge most clearly in the 1930fs, the period of the Great Depression.^ In an attempt to discover how the problem of liberty and authority was resolved, that i s , to investigate what might be termed the reality of the Canadian concern for "British charters of freedom1^ a Canadian community, Toronto, in the early years of the Great Depression (1929-1935), will be examined. The examination has been restricted to a single community, Toronto, so as to make possible a more intensive study of the specific issues involved. That city has been chosen for i t was there, in that staid British city of the Dominion which boasted the finest reputation for the reverence of "things British'^ that the problem of liberty and authority emerged most forcefully in the 30fs. Before examining the issue of liberty and authority as i t emerged in the Toronto of the 30*s, however, two tasks must be undertaken as the necessary back-ground to understanding the question of the balance of freedom and authority in a specific period in Canadian society. The nature of the theoretical Canadian inheritance of the British traditions concerning the individ-u a l ^ status vis-a-vis the state must be examined. So also, the back-ground of Toronto as a Canadian community in the 1920fs and 30*s must be investigated—the composition of its population, the kinds of activities its people pursued and valued most highly, the prevailing prejudices and attitudes that they maintained. 6 Specific issues—the policy of Brigadier-General Dennis Draper, Chief of Police, and the Toronto Board of Police Commissioners over the holding of public meetings in parks, streets and halls; section 98 of the Criminal Code and the t r i a l in Toronto of the eight Communist party leaders; the "sedition" t r i a l in Toronto of Rev. A. E. Smith of the Canadian Labor Defence League; the Regina Riot, July 1935, the bloody solution of the "On-to-Ottawa Trek"—were the "stuff" of which the controversy over liberty and authority was waged in Toronto of the 1930*s, and i t is these issues that will be intensively examined. Certain of the issues enumerated had implications far beyond the confines of the city of Toronto, yet their examination within the limits of a restricted and specific area will reduce the necessity of making unwarranted generalizations, by allowing for a more detailed., examination of the reactions that resulted. The case studies of liberty and authority will not be approached so as to judge according to essentially subjective criteria how far "British c i v i l liberties" were being threatened in Toronto, nor to examine the judicial, purely legal implications of the cases in question, but rather so as to investigate the diversity of reaction that these particular issues evoked among significant sectors of the population. Certainly i t would be an impossible task to calculate the reaction of every sector of the population of Toronto, or even to evaluate with precision the degree of support given to a particular idea, for one is hampered in an examination of this type by the absence of any precise tech-nique of evaluating the objective impact of ideas upon any given society. What seems to be of relevance, however, is an examination of the reasoning and the underlying assumptions of those groups who expressed opinions on 7 specific issues. Hence, the concern will be focused more on the implications of the ideas expressed than on the degree of support accorded to them. An examination of the manner in which the issue of c i v i l liberties emerged amidst significant groups in Toronto may thus enable one to estimate how closely the reality of Canadian concern for "British c i v i l liberties" has approximated to the ideal—how finely the balance was struck between liberty and authority in the 1930*s. So also, i t should lead to a deeper understanding of some of the thought patterns and assumptions that formed a part of the social context of the Canadian Depression, and dictated a specific Canadian response to that well-nigh world-shattering phenomenon. 8 CHAPTER II THE CANADIAN LEGAL INHERITANCE-In any consideration of the evolution of "liberty" or "freedom" in a Canadian context, some attempt to assign particular meanings to those widely-used yet frequently nebulous phrases must precede. The., term "liberty," based largely on historical and functional considera-tions, pertains directly to the problem of the respective positions of the individual and the state, that i s , to "governmental restraint and governmental intervention in the relations of citizen and state and citizen and citizen."^" Hence, under the general term of "liberty," one may speak of traditional political c i v i l liberties associated with the operation of parliamentary institutions—freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press—and personal liberties connected with the legal order that are particular projections of political l i b e r t i e s — freedom from arbitrary arrest or arbitrary search and seizure of person, premises and papers, "Liberty" may be further defined in an economic context that concerns the relation of individual to individual or group to group in respect to contracts and particular rights, like the right to strike and to picket. Similarly, one must include in the general field of "liberty," freedom in a human rights or egalitarian sense, a form which involves positive state intervention to secure such rights as equal opportunity of employment, and of access to public places without discrimination on account of colour, religion, or ethnic origin. Hence, the problem of "liberty" is not merely a question of the absence of state interference in the l i f e of the individual, but frequently depends for its existence on positive intervention by the state. In the ensuing discus-sion of liberty and authority in Canada, the focus of concern will be placed upon the traditional political concept of c i v i l liberty—chiefly, though not exclusively, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly,—and i t is in relation to the evolution of these particular aspects of the theoretical-background of "liberty" in Canada that the liberal tradition in Canada must be examined. The first legal system to be introduced and enforced in Canada—in New France—was the French Coutume de Paris, a mixture of Roman law, 3 feudal law and French custom. It was introduced as early as 1637 under French company rule, although i t did not receive official recognition until 1663 when the French,Crown assumed royal control of the colony. In the period after 1663 until the Conquest, Canadian Nlaw .consisted;. in the Coutume de Paris, the administrative and judicial decisions of the Council of New France, and the Royal Proclamations, some of which were 4 never registered by the Council of New France. French law, with its firm foundations in Roman law, enhanced the authority of the state at the expense of the liberty of the individual. Protection in law was ensured for individual against individual, but not for the individual against the state.^ One historian has commented on the character of French law in its delineation of the individual vis-a-vis the state in the following manner: It seems clear that the idea of individual rights, the idea of a general liberty, subject only to the condition of refraining from infringing the liberty of others did not, in fact, infuse at any point the structure of the French ancien regime. 6 Once prosecution had begun on a criminal charge i t was virtually impossible 7 for the individual, by his own exertion, to escape conviction. To comment in this manner on the character of French law,' however-, is not to 10 assert that the French-Canadian colonists were bending under the yoke of an iniquitous tyranny, but simply to indicate that the posit ion, and hence the rights of the individual , did not constitute the foundation of French, and therefore Canadian, law i n the pre-Conquest period. The legal trend steadily developed i n the French colonial period was to be reversed with the introduction of English law i n the post-Conquest period, though the reversal was by no means inmediate or for th-r i g h t . In the f i r s t decade after the Conquest, a vigourous controversy raged i n the B r i t i s h legal profession over the kind of legal system that g was to be maintained i n the newly-acquired ter r i tory . The decisions reached are indicated i n the two major statutes passed before the end of the century. The Quebec Act, 1774, restored the French c i v i l law but maintained the English criminal law, and l e f t the door open for the o introduction of habeas corpus and t r i a l by jury. So also, the Constitu-t i o n a l Act, 1791, introduced the principle of elective insti tutions into the acquired t e r r i t o r y . Those statutes thus reversed the whole trend of the French-Canadian legal and constitutional t radi t ion , not as i t affected the- relation of individual- to individual , but insofar as It related to the position.of.,the individual m hs relation to the state. That the t radi t ion introduced into B r i t i s h North America i n the post-Conquest period was to be entrenched i n Canadian constitutional and legal theory and accepted by French and English was c learly indicated i n the preamble of the B r i t i s h North America Act: Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Bri ta in and Ireland with a constitu-t ion similar i n principle to that of the United Kingdom. . . . 11 The British tradition that ensured the reversal of the French— indeed European—concept of the relative positions of the individual and the state had roots in British constitutional development stretching back to Magna Carta and the development of the common law. The real signifi-cance of Magna Carta lay not in the particular details or concessions of the king, save in articles 39 and 40: 39- Mo freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. 40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice. 10 The real importance of Magna Carta thus lay in its implicit recognition of the principle that government should not be arbitrarily carried on at the whim of the ruler, but should be conducted according to a rule of n 11 law. Similarly, the development of the common law in the Court of Kingfs Bench, the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Exchequer, had at its foundation the fundamental idea of the rule of law which Magna Carta upheld. As early as the thirteenth century, common law lawyers recog-nized the principle of the supremacy of the rule of law even over the rule of the king. Bracton, a thirteenth:century.common lawyer,::wrote: But the King himself ought not to be subject to man, but subject to God and to the law, for the law makes the King. Let the King, then, attribute to the law what the law attributes to him, namely dominion and power, for there is no King where the will and not the law has dominion. 12 The common law was based on the customary law of England, setting forth the decisions of judges rather than imposing any form of legal enactment 13 as was the case in the Roman law of the Continent. Unlike the Roman 12 administrative law that gained almost universal acceptance in medieval Europe, English common law was the product of experience rather than , . 14 logic. By the termination of the seventeenth century, the common law lawyers of the Inns of Court, with Parliament as their chief instrument, had triumphed in the battle for the supremacy of the rule of law over the absolutist theories of the Stuarts and c i v i l lawyers. What that victory ultimately meant, A. V. Dicey has characterized in the following terms: When we say that the supremacy of the rule of law is a characteristic of the English constitution. . .we mean, in the first place. . .that no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. In this sense the rule of law is contrasted with every system of governT ment based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary or discretionary powers of constraint. . . . 15 . . . We mean in the second place that here every man, what-ever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. . . . 16 . . . There remains yet a third and a different sense in which the"rule of law" or the predominance of the legal spirit may be described as a special attribute of English institutions. . . . The general principles of the constitution (as for example the right to personal liberty, or the right of public meeting) are with us the result of judicial decisions determining the rights ofprivate persons in particular cases brought before the courts; whereas under many foreign constitutions, the security . . .given to the rights of individuals results. . .from the general principles of the constitution. 17 To assert the essentially hallowed position the individual held in relation to the state, is not to assert there existed a wide range of freedom for every individual of Britain since the Middle Ages. Indeed, in many respects, Magna Carta, that charter which;,: in retrospect, stands 18 as one of the foundations of freedom, was a most reactionary document. The "freeman" to which the charter alludes contemplated at most the 13 "freeholders," a minority class, thus excluding the "peasantry.and 19 villagers of the time." The criminal law, providing the death penalty for more than one hundred misdemeanors, was among the harshest in 20 existence when compared with European codes, yet the common lawyer Fortescue, in the fifteenth century could "speak of liberty and the laws 21 of England in the same breath." That he believed this to be possible sprang largely from his knowledge that, though the laws were stern and stringent, individuals were to be treated not in an arbitrary manner, but in accordance with the specifically defined law of the land. It is against this background of the rule of law that the tradi-tional political c i v i l liberties—freedom of speech, freedom of association— must be examined, for such liberties existed not by virtue of "constitu-tional guarantee," but by virtue of the principle enshrined in the constitution that a rule of law prevailed beyond the sheer whims of arbitrary individuals. At no period in English history, had there been any proclamation of the right to liberty of thought or freedom of speech. In effect, the right to speak freely on any issue existed insofar as, in doing so, the law of the land was not contravened. In legal terms, ¥. R. Lederman has defined freedom of speech as "the residual area of natural liberty remaining after the legal system, by specific prohibitions, has ensured a general state of public peace and order, and therefore made the areas of freedom and liberty meaningful as realms of peaceful 22 choice." Similarly, freedom of assembly rested upon the right of each individual to express his own opinion, subject only to the specific limitations of the law. Again the pervading principle of English law is the deciding factor—namely, that the liberty of men is to be interfered with, not because they may break the law, but only when they have 14 23 committed some definitely assignable legal offence. By the mid-nineteenth century in England, the specific restraints imposed by law on freedom of speech and assembly had a l l but vanished, 2.L save for those that provided against defamation, blasphemy, and sedition. The decision as to whether a man was in fact guilty of "seditious utterance" or lfunlawful assembly" rested upon the application of the import of previous cases to be found in English common law to the particular case; the extent of liberty of speech and assembly was to be decided ultimately by a jury. Dicey described the process in the following manner: Freedom of discussion i s , then, in England, l i t t l e else than the right to say anything which a jury consisting of twelve shopkeepers think i t expedient should be said or written. Such "liberty" may vary at different times and seasons from -unrestricted license to very severe restraint, and the experience of English history during the last two centuries shows that under the law of libel the amount of latitude conceded to the expression of opinion has in fact differed greatly according to the condition of popular sentiment. 2 5 Hence, the concept "cherished British liberties," like freedom of speech and assembly, was incapable of definition in any absolute sense. It was the "tradition" of the public law of England, the under-lying belief in the supremacy of the rule of law that was imported into the Canadian constitutional process. The French c i v i l law of 'Quebec remained, but the realm of public law was transformed by English practice through an evolutionary process. In his judgment in the Alberta Press 2 6 Case (193S), Sir Lyman Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, elaborated on the implications of that British "heritage." Though the document is somewhat lengthy, portions of i t deserve quotation, for i t is one of the few instances in which the courts have chosen to comment on the real 15 significance of the preamble to the B. N. A. Act. Under the constitution established by the B. N. A. Act, legis la t ive power for Canada i s vested i n one parliament consisting of the Sovereign, an upper house styled the Senate and the House of Commons. . . . The preamble of the statute, moreover, shows plainly enough that the constitution of the Dominion i s to be similar i n principle to that of the United Kingdom. The statute, contemplates a parliament working under the influence of public opinion and public discussion. There can be no controversy that such insti tutions derive their efficacy from the free public discussion of a f f a i r s , from cr i t i c i sm and answer and counter-criticism, from attack upon policy and administration and defence and counter-attack. . . . The right of public discussion i s of course subject to legal res tr ic t ions , those based upon considerations of decency and public order, and others conceived for the protection of various private and public interests with which, for example, the laws of defamation and sedition are concerned. In a word, freedom of discussion means, to quote the words of Lord Wright i n James V. Commonwealth /JL9367 AC 578 at p. 627, "freedom governed by law." 27 The principle of English law was adopted, yet, even i n theoretical terms, i t was not a wholesale importation of English t radi t ion , but a specific Canadian adaptation. In 1893, through the efforts of Sir John Thompson, Minister of Justice, a Canadian Criminal Code based on a draft code prepared by a B r i t i s h Royal Commission i n 1880, but never accepted 28 by the B r i t i s h Parliament, came into existence i n Canada, thereby combining the "French t radi t ion of a code with the English t radi t ion of a f lex ible common law."^^ It set down the pract ical l imitations of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of assembly" by defining specific 30 p r o h i b i t i o n s — l i b e l , blasphemy, sedition, unlawful assembly. However, seditious intention was not defined i n the Criminal Code, and i t was ultimately decided to leave the def ini t ion to common law. Crankshaw, i n his Criminal Code of Canada, remarked: 16 These cases /at common law7 shew how wide the legal notion of seditious conspiracy i s . It seems to include every sort of attempt—by violent language, either spoken or written, or by shew of force calculated to produce fear— to affect any public object of an evil character; and no precise or complete definition has ever been given of objects which are to be regarded as evil. 31 Section 133 A provided a modification of that broad conception by explicitly asserting that to show in good faith that His Majesty or the government of Canada had been nplsled or mistaken was not to be considered seditious. Similarly, i t was not seditious to induce His Majesty*s subjects to procure, by lawful means, the alteration of any 32 matter in the state. Section 87 of the Criminal Code defined "un-lawful assembly" in the following terms: An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously, or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously. 33 Thus, to this extent, "freedom of speech" and "freedom of assembly" existed in Canada. Moreover, the Code was to be interpreted and amended in relation to these subjects according to the views of Canadian legis-lators. The clearest instance of that re-interpretation occurred in 1919 in the aftermath of the Winnipeg General strike, when section 133 A 34 was withdrawn from the Code and section 98 was added. Indeed, so drastic was the revision that i t contravened British traditions by legalizing guilt by association and placing the burden of proof of innocence upon the accused.35 Similarly the adaptation of the English "tradition" of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of assembly" in terms of legislative 17 responsibil i ty has been a peculiarly Canadian phenomenon. In England, by the eighteenth century, Parliament had emerged as the f i n a l arbiter of the rule of law; i n Canada, legis la t ive supremacy was shared by a federal Parliament and provincial legislatures. Legislative competence i n matters of c i v i l l iber t ies had not been s p e c i f i c a l l y delineated i n sections 91 and 92 of the B. N. A. Act which define the respective areas of federal and provincial j u r i s d i c t i o n . Although control of-"property and c i v i l r ights" /section 92 (.13)7 bad been s p e c i f i c a l l y delegated to the provinces, that clause, as examined i n a special report to the Senate, was interpreted to be related not to the rights of the individual v i s - a - v i s the state, but to a " c i t izen T s property rights and their private r ights , as against each other, of a l l kinds, enforceable at of. law." In fact , opinion was seriously divided as to where responsi-37 b i l i t y for t radi t ional p o l i t i c a l l iber t ies lay . According to W. R. R i d d e l l , Chief Justice of Ontario, each legislature , subject to its-proper subject matter, had powers as unlimited as those of the B r i t i s h 38 Parliament. F . R. Scott has pointed out, however, that certain absolute limitations had been placed on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty i n 39 the B. N. A. Act. Similar ly , the judgment of Chief Justice Duff i n the Alberta Press Case,^ 0 i n i t s interpretation of the preamble of the B. N. A. Act, seemed to imply that there i s an essential core of the area of freedom of expression that must be preserved from legal encroach-ment " i f the national Parliament i s to have the motive power of a free public opinion that i s for i t the breath of l i f e , ^ and that this essential core must prevai l against invasion by both provincial and federal Parliaments. Clearly , however, exclusive legislat ive control over the Criminal Code, and thereby the power to define the pract ical 18 limitations of freedom of speech and assembly by defining such crimes as sedition, lies with the federal Parliament. The issue, however, is not solved by this fact alone, for though the Criminal Code is under federal jurisdiction, the application of the code, in its administrative 43 aspect, is under provincial control. So also, the provinces possess the authority to pass enabling statutes under the power with respect to "municipal institutions in the provinces" /section 92 (8}/ in the B. N. A. Act, permitting municipalities to pass by-laws which may serve as effective curbs on freedom of speech and assembly by regulating the use of streets, parks and public meeting places as well as the licensing of public h a l l s . ^ The Canadian constitutional and legal inheritance, insofar as i t underlined a conception of the relationship of the individual and the state, thus represented a specific adaptation of theory that necessarily reflected the peculiar characteristics of Canadian society and its governmental structure. What most clearly emerges from this discussion of the meaning of that tradition and inheritance is the difficulty—indeed the impossibility—of defining i t in a British or Canadian context in any absolute sense. 19 CHAPTER III TORONTO IN THE 1920»s and 1930»s Regard this city on the evening of Victoria Day, May. 24tK, and see the flaring rockets and Roman candles of patriotic celebration. Look upon i t on July 4tfoa^d;-see/evjeryman going about his business as i f i t were merely July 5th or 6th. In a word, Toronto is British in the North American manner. 1 By the early decades of the twentieth century, Toronto, in keen rivalry with the metropolis of Montreal, had emerged as one of the largest and most significant urban centres of the Dominion. At the point of its one hundredth anniversary of municipal incorporation in 1934, i t had assumed the status of a rapidly expanding metropolis of 2 more than 631,000 citizens. As the centre of provincial government for one of the most populous areas of the Dominion, as a major centre of financial and commercial activity, as a centre of intellectual l i f e , possessing, as i t did, the largest state-controlled educational institu-tion of the country, Toronto had acquired within the Dominion a reputation that evoked both reverence and disgust. Indeed, its numerous epithets, "Toronto the Good," "city of homes," "city of churches," as well as its reputation for periodic intolerance and narrowness of attitude, could a l l find some manner of vindication. The chief pride and joy of a significant and vocal sector of the 3 city lay in its reputation for the reverence of "things British." Its very foundations had sprung from those stalwart British settlers who had entered upon an inhospitable territory in the express desire of main-taining their allegiance to the throne of England. Jessie Edgar Middleton, 20 one o f t h e c h i e f h i s t o r i a n s o f T o r o n t o ' s p a s t , w r o t e i n 1923: The f i r s t s e t t l e r s o f t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d were p r o u d o f t h e i r B r i t i s h c i t i z e n s h i p . Most o f them had s u f f e r e d f o r i t and c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e i r l o y a l t y had become a p a s s i o n . L o y a l t y t o t h e t h r o n e and f l a g o f E n g l a n d i s s t i l l a p a s s i o n i n T o r o n t o . 4 A l a r g e p a r t o f t h a t c l a i m t o T o r o n t o ' s " B r i t i s h n e s s " l a y i n t h e r a c i a l c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e c i t y . T here i s no o t h e r c i t y o f comparable s i z e where t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s as homogeneous as T o r o n t o . The c o l o n i e s o f f o r e i g n c i t i z e n s a r e n o t l a r g e . The g r e a t b u l k o f t h e p e o p l e a r e o f E n g l i s h s p e e ch and one does n o t o f t e n h e a r any o t h e r language on t h e s t r e e t s . The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e e l e c t o r s on t h e c i t y c o u n c i l a r e a l l E n g l i s h -s p e a k i n g and n e a r l y a l l o f B r i t i s h b i r t h . 5 I n f a c t , o u t o f a t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n o f 631,207 i n 1931, 558,560 were B r i t i s h by r a c i a l o r i g i n . ^ 1 The t o t a l number o f i m m i g r a n t s l i v i n g i n t h e c i t y i n 1931 ( e x c l u d i n g t h e B r i t i s h I s l e s and t h e B r i t i s h p o s s e s s i o n s ) 7 amounted t o o n l y 72,647. I n o n l y two o f t h e e i g h t e l e c t o r a l wards o f t h e c i t y , wards f o u r and f i v e , d i d p e o p l e o f B r i t i s h r a c i a l o r i g i n f a i l t o f o r m a s i g n i f i c a n t m a j o r i t y . That t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e c i t y was u n d e r g o i n g a s l o w p r o c e s s o f change, however, i s c l e a r f r o m a c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e census r e p o r t s o f 1921 and 1931. The number o f f o r e i g n -b o r n i m m i g r a n t s r e s i d i n g i n t h e c i t y ( e x c l u d i n g t h e B r i t i s h I s l e s and t h e B r i t i s h p o s s e s s i o n s ) had i n c r e a s e d f r o m 47,941 t o 72,647 o v e r t h e 9 t e n y e a r p e r i o d . So a l s o , i n t h e r e p o r t s o f t h e c e n t e n n i a l c e l e b r a t i o n s i n 1934, t h e T o r o n t o S t a r n o t e d t h a t a p o r t i o n o f t h e s t r e e t p a r a d e was made up o f a new phenomenon i n T o r o n t o — a s e r i e s o f d i s t i n c t i v e n a t i o n a l groups d i s p l a y i n g t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r h a b i t s o f d r e s s . What t h o s e " B r i t i s h t r a d i t i o n s " t h a t were so h i g h l y r e v e r e d i n T o r o n t o c o n s i s t e d i n cann o t b e . s t a t e d w i t h any degree o f p r e c i s i o n . I n e f f e c t , T o r o n t o ' s r e v e r e n c e c o n s i s t e d more i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l a u r a — a n 21 atmosphere and an inchoate affinity—than i n s c i e n t i f i c a l l y definable facts . It centred chief ly around a steady loyalty to the maintenance of the B r i t i s h connection, and a concern for the preservation of the B r i t i s h principles of "constitutionalism" and "liberty.""'"^ The experience of the F i rs t World War had done a great deal to reinforce this t radi t ion of reverence for the generation of the 20 fs and 30*s i n Toronto, for Toronto had made a generous - contribution both i n terms of manpower and finance to the war ef for t . In three years of voluntary recruit ing, Ontario sent 231,191 men to the trenches, 70,000 of whom were from Toronto; over 10,000 Torontonians fa i led to return from those trenches 12 i n 1918. I". Over' $7,000,000 i n funds were subscribed to the 13 Patriotic Fund from Toronto alone. Middleton saw the roots of the Toronto war effort and the heightened post-war mil i tary s p i r i t of the c i t y that accounted for the establishment of four new battalions after the war i n the following manner: Youths of the old Families which have been i n Toronto for a century or more w i l l , not be able to trace the impulse through four generations of pride i n Being B r i t i s h , through the layers of resentment against republicanism and a l l new-fangled theories of government. . . . ./Jtfhen/ his grandfather was huddled i n the square at Ridgewaycor stormed the trenches at Batoche, his inner feelings are l i k e l y to be governed by his s p i r i t u a l inheritance, and by the environment of spoken and unspoken loyalty . . . . As for others coming into this nest of Bri t ish- thinking, B r i t i s h -acting people, naturally they are influenced by the mass» thought and soon find themselves as eager to put themselves i n the posture of defence as their friends and neighbours. For every 100 persons within the l imits of the c i t y , one man wears the King*s uniform, voluntarily and without pay. The s p i r i t of 100 years ago i s the s p i r i t of today. 14 Hence, the recent experience of the War had served but to intensify Toronto*s consciousness of i t s B r i t i s h "heritage," however indefinable i t may have been. 22 The entrenched position of the fraternal orders of the community— above a l l , the Loyal Orange Association and the Masonic Order—similarly enhanced the "British consciousness" of the city. As early as 1831, the Orange Order had been solidly established in Toronto, and one of its fundamental principles was the maintenance of the imperial connection between Canada and the mother-country. H. C. Hocken, a former Grand Master of the Orange Lodge and editor of the Orange Sentinel, the association*s of f i c i a l newspaper, outlined the influence the Order exerted within the community: . . .One of the fundamental principles of the Order is the maintenance of the connection between Canada and the Mother-country. The society naturally attracted the loyalist element to the lodges, who, through the organization, exerted great influence upon the public l i f e of the city. . . . The militia has for one-half century been composed largely of members of the order which was the effect of the teaching given in the lodges at their monthly meetings. . . . From the early days also, the Orangemen.have exerted almost a dominant influence in the municipal adminis-tration. . . . Since 1897 only three mayors have not been members of the Order. The administration, of the Public School system has from its inception been carried on by elected trustees the great majority of whom have been Orangemen. . . . The spirit of this institution has been stamped upon the Public Schools through the men who have directed the primary education of the population either as trustees or officials. 15 The active membership of the Order in Toronto during the 1920fs was 16 estimated as high as 20,000, with 8,000 certificate members. The political affiliations of the majority of the electorate of 17 the city were "enthusiastically, even ecstatically Conservative." In the federal election of July, 1930, a Conservative candidate won an 18 overwhelming majority in every riding but one. It was possible that 23 much of the Conservative support stemmed from the fact that i t under-lined the city's firm adherence to the British throne and the main-tenance at a l l hazards of the British connection and British prestige. The Liberal party, with its less virulent stand on the British connection, continually emerged as a pale second. Even in the depression election of 1935, when the Liberals were tireless in laying the blame of the economic catastrophe at the door of Bennett and the Conservatives, the Conservatives maintained a firm hold upon Toronto, though they were 19 soundly defeated in the rest of Ontario. Middleton viewed Toronto as a city of moderationists in respect to their attitudes. The epithet, however, was hardly applicable to its political affiliations, for the staunch Conservatism of the majority was matched by a small^but vociferous and divided company of radicals ranging the gamut of the political spectrum from moderate socialism to forthright Marxism. By the 1920Ts, Toronto had long been called "the city of churches," 20 as well as "Toronto the Good." Its centennial historian, Edwin C. Guillet, noted that, by 1934, the city had no fewer than 390 churches 21 and missions; However, the epithets characterized a spirit and attitude of the city far more than a numerical calculation. The pervading aura 22 of the city was strongly Protestant, frequently revealing itself in its emphasis upon active social service. To a -large' •'•< degree, that concern or emphasis had its roots in the core of Methodism that was so 23 strongly entrenched in the city since the 1880fs, but i t extended far beyond Methodism. Here was situated the centre for the departments of social service of the various churches, the Big Brother Movement, the Salvation Army and service club organizations. So too, the Protestant or religious spirit tended to pervade the very activities of government 24 and daily municipal activity with a moralistic or ethical tinge. The manner in which the Sabbath was ostensibly observed exemplifies the formative influence that religion—at least in a formal sense—exercised. Street preaching was a commonplace on Saturday nights and Sundays. On week nights the booths and amusements of Sunnyside remained open after midnight, but, "on Saturday nights everything closed sharply at the strike of twelve, in order not to disturb the jealously guarded peace of 25 the Toronto Sabbath." The editorial page of the Toronto Globe exhibited that moralistic, almost puritanical, aura in its most extreme form. The Canadian Forum characterized that tone: The outstanding feature of the Globe*s editorial page is a state of piety which becomes more obnoxious as time goes on and civilization and sin come into their own. For years the Globe warned against booze. The Great War, i t believed,was fought so that i t could carry out its own great moral reforms. It licked its lips over Prohibition. A great blight f e l l upon the paper when the benighted burghers of Ontario cast aside its saintly teachings and brought their liquor back. 26 TorontoTs position as a financial centre in the 1920*s was second 27 only to that of Montreal. Here was to be found the head office of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, the Bank, of Toronto, the Dominion Bank and the Imperial Bank—indeed, the headquarters for eight of seventeen 28 chartered Canadian banks. "Provincial and municipal bodies from British Columbia to Newfoundland looked to the investment bankers of Toronto to provide funds for their public works and other capital require-29 ments." Similarly, in its commercial and industrial aspect, Toronto of the 20*s was of no mean importance. By 1934, 2,236 manufacturing plants existed within the limits of the city, producing an annual value of 30 products approaching $6,000,000,000 and providing employment for 102,406 workers. Commercially, gigantic department stores like Eatonfs 25 and Simpson's had long been established without completely preventing 31 the growth of independent retail shops. The existence of factories and large commercial enterprises meant that a large working class population existed, only a small portion of which had been effectively organized 32 into unions. Hence, what Middleton characterized as a city of homes and gardens had its less pleasant aspects in the destitution of the areas 33 of the Ward and Moss Park. The Toronto Board of Trade, with a member-34 ship of more than 2000, and the Toronto Industrial Commission, established in 1929 to attract business interests to the city, effectively voiced and .protected the special interests of the entreprenurial and corporate class. Clearly, Toronto as a city contained a class of wealthy citizens. Indeed, though containing only seven per cent of the population of the Dominion, Toronto had recorded approximately 20 per cent of the $2,300,000,000 of subscriptions to government loans issued for war purposes 35 since 1915. Yet, although the city was to bear the impress of a wealthy entreprenurial and corporate class, i t did not follow that i t was t.otally individualist in its economic outlook. "Nowhere else on the continent1'*^ was there stronger and more effective support for public ownership of public u t i l i t i e s , though, to be sure, i t was justified, not in the name of socialism, but of thrift and business-like efficiency. By 1931, the Toronto Hydro-Electric system, the Transportation Commission, and the Harbor Commission were the tangible results of support for public ownership of u t i l i t i e s . It may be seen then, that by the 1920*3, Toronto had emerged as a major industrial, urban centre of the Dominion. As a city of contrasts— of poverty and wealth, of squalor and beauty, of radicalism and conserva-tism, of public ownership and individualist enterprise—it had gained a 26 reputation which evoked both reverence and disgust. Seemingly, an equilibrium had been established that promised to continue with the prosperity that had emerged with the termination of the post-war depression. Then came October, 1929. In the midst of what purported to be an unprecedented era of economic prosperity, Toronto, like the rest of the Dominion, was to experience the all-encompassing effects of a well-nigh universal upset of the world economic order that was to last a decade. In a study of the effects of that upset on Ontario, and particularly upon Toronto, H. M. Cassidy commented: It is not too much to say that i t represents a major catastrophe in the history of Ontario and of Canada.-*' The impact of the Depression on Toronto, as a financial and industrial 38 centre, was extremely severe. In part, that severity was the direct result of the fear and hesitation of financial and manufacturing circles. In a pre-Keynesian era, the logical remedy seemed to be a policy of economic stringency in governmental and industrial activity. Hence, Toronto»s Commissioner of Finance, G. Wilson, in his annual report of the Treasury Department, 1932, counselled the following: . . .strict adherence to the now well-established policies of rigid retrenchment of capital and current expenditures is imperative i f the city fs present high standard of credit and prestige is to be maintained. 39 In spite of such advice, however, the city sustained a deficit of 40 $1,270,425.00 —an amount that takes on significance when i t is compared to the city»s surplus of $1,523,857-00 in 1929.^ The most conspicuous effects of the Depression were the result of economic measures that took the form of wage-reductions, shortened hours, and dismissal for large numbers of workers. In a study of the situation in Ontario and, chiefly Toronto, 1929-1932,—that is, before the worst 27 year of the Depression, 1933—H. M. Cassidy indicated the dimensions of the problem: During many of the. winters since the War, the severity of unemployment has.been greater i n Canada than i n B r i t a i n . . . . As a consequence of unemployment, there has been a good deal of destitution i n Canada for many years. . . . But never before i n our history has unemploy-ment been so severe; and never before has the problem of r e l i e f been so acute. 42 An investigation of the Toronto situation revealed that by 1932, 20,057 families were receiving r e l i e f , a number five times larger than the average reached i n the previous decade. The t o t a l number i n this class was probably a good deal larger " for many others received assistance from private charitable agencies and a great many must have been dependent upon help from friends and r e l a t i v e s . " ^ Of the number reported unemployed, more than 60 per cent were unskilled or semi-skilled; i n fact , the majority were "rather low i n the social and economic scale before they 45 lost their jobs. Cassidy, however, was emphatic i n emphasizing the essential guiltlessne'ss of the victims. The great majority had l ived i n Toronto for more than a year; "they were essentially permanent residents of the c i t y , rather than ^transients* or migratory workers . "^ The average length of unemployment per man before registration for r e l i e f _ 47 was 9.7 months. . . .75,000 people i n t o t a l or twelve per cent of the c i t y f s population were unable to provide for themselves the necessities of l i f e at some time or another. . . . Great numbers of people must have become public dependents who are essentially sturdy se l f - re l iant c i t i z e n s . . . . Public dependence has ceased to be the monopoly of only the lowest social and economic group i n the community. 48 The response of the c i t y to the steadily r i s ing t ide of destitution i n the early 30Ts was both administrative and f inancia l . U n t i l 1931, the existing municipal machinery and emergency public and private 28 organizations were galvanized into action. The City Relief Office, the Central Bureau for Unemployment Relief, established in December^1930, for the registration of single unemployed men, the Toronto Civic Unemploy-ment Relief Committee and the long-established House of Industry represented an uncoordinated complex of municipal and private organizations for the 49 distribution of direct relief. In June 1931, a new administrative office, the Department of Public Welfare, centralizing the welfare activity of civic government and operating directly or through private cooperative organizations, was established to systematize and coordinate relief activities.^In 1933, the severest year of the Depression, the city's contribution to direct relief through that Department amounted to 51 $2,400,791. Herein lay the chief cause of the city's unprecedented deficits in its budgetary finance. The Commissioner'of;Finance.in:.his Report asserted: . . .the City of Toronto is faced with the problem of sub-normal revenues during the continuance of the business depression, due particularly to a) abnormal expenditures for the relief of the unemployed b)_ decreased revenue from Income and Business taxes &c.) probable increase in the amount of tax arrears. 52 As early as 1931, Toronto's share of the relief expenditure was already 53 twelve times larger than that of 1929.. The tangible evidence of the ultimate inadequacy of existing methods to alleviate the situation, however, pervaded certain, clearly-defined segments of the city. The Report of the Lieutenant-Governor's Committee on Housing Conditions in Toronto in 1934 underlined the material implications of widespread unemployment. The Committee found that, since many landlords refused to accept tenants known to be on relief, the quality of accommodation offered by those who did accept relief vouchers 54 was in most cases of the very meanest. Of the 1,332 dwellings 29 investigated primarily in the areas of Moss Park, Parkdale and the Ward, 55 999 f e l l below the Committee's mimjrnum standard of amenities. y To a city frequently eulogized as a "city of homes," the Committee starkly addressed the following comment: Our survey of Toronto housing conditions reveals there are thousands of families living in houses which are unsanitary, verminous and grossly overcrowded. The Committee confidently estimates that the number of dwellings which for these and other reasons constitute a definite menace to the health and dependency of the occupants is certainly not less than 2000 and may be more than 3000. . . . Housing conditions are bad because there are many families which cannot earn enough to pay for decent and healthful dwellings. 56 Similarly, the Canadian Forum depicted the squalor of li f e in the "jungles" of the Don Valley for able yet idle manhood: In the Don Valley of Toronto, there is a colony of several hundred men who are almost entirely isolated from normal human society. . . . The more-fortunate live in brick kilns, the others in shacks and dug-outs, constructed of sheets of rust and tin, odd pieces of wood, and other miscellaneous rubbish. They pick up a meagre living after the fashion of stray cats and dogs. 57 Examined from a statistical or factual point of view, the character of Toronto in the late 20Ts and early 30's, and the impact of the Depression upon i t , may be fairly calculated. Yet the impact of that Depression is beyond one of the mere calculable statistics of unbalanced ledgers, relief rolls and eviction records. In examining the less tangible problem of liberty and authority in Toronto of the 30*s—a problem that, to that most British of Canadian cities, had already been solved by its British "heritagett-one may comprehend more deeply the less visible, yet nonetheless significant impact of the Depression and the specifically Canadian response that i t evoked. 30 CHAPTER IV FREEDOM OF SPEECH Toronto, of course is beyond redemption. Up there the Globe and the Telegram seem to think that atheists have captured Toronto University and that the Soviets & Reds are just waiting an opportunity to raid Queen's Park and exile Premier Henry to Siberia. But, as we said, we mustn't mind Toronto. 1 (Ottawa Journal. May 4, 1931) The problem of liberty and authority in Toronto emerged primarily and most forcefully over the principle of freedom of speech,and was focused upon the policy of the municipal police force, as determined by 2 the Board of Police Commissioners and executed by the Chief of Police, 3 Brigadier-General Dennis Draper. The accounts provided by the four daily newspapers—the Star, the Telegram, the Globe. the Mail and Empire— appear to provide a relatively accurate picture of the nature of that policy, for there is l i t t l e or no discrepancy among them as to the actual r facts of the situation. ^VT -^P^'1' Much of the controversy about freedom of speech was centred on the threat or alleged threat of Communism. The last years of the 20* s had witnessed an increasing degree of activity on the part of Communist party members in Toronto, chiefly in the form of public meetings held in the streets, parks, and public halls of the city to denounce the evils of the capitalist system and to declare its impending doom. Party activity had 4 intensified throughout 1929, but the onset of the economic depression in October, 1929, witnessed more feverish efforts as the Communist predictions of disaster appeared to be materializing. The Chief of Police and the Board of Police Commissioners reacted swiftly and firmly. In 31 1928, the following notice was posted in a l l public halls* You are hereby notified that i f any Communistic. . . meetings held in a public hall, theatre, music hall. . .are carried on in a foreign language. . .the license for such public hall etc. shall be immediately thereafter cancelled. i By order of the Board of Police Commissioners.' Moreover, meetings held in the parks were summarily dismissed upon the arrival of the Toronto police force. The police, however, frequently found i t necessary to resort to vigourous measures when the crowd failed to respond with sufficient speed to the orders for dispersal. On several occasions, these methods gave rise to a situation approaching the proportions of a riot. The Telegram described one such occasion: Inspector Marshall, with his force of men, was pressing the crowd outwards towards the parliament buildings while another line of police. . .pressing northward caught the crowds between them. . . . The motorcycles . . .roared their way making large gaps and laneways in the crowd. . . . Older men, unable to move as fast, were trampled down by the crowds, including the police. Women ran for the shelter of the streets and were chased. Police boots are said to have assisted fists and sticks. Elbows, too, were used to break up the crowds. How the mounted men were able to prevent their horses from trampling people under is s t i l l a miracle. 6 The Mail and Empire characterized the same events in the following headline: Batons and Feet Used.Freely as City Police Rout Reds. Communists and Curious Spectators Suffer as Draper's Men Charge Queen's Park with Horses, Motorcycles and Wooden Clubs. One-eyed Veteran of Great War among Several Non-Communists who Feel Strong Arm of the Law, MacDonald Booted to Bloor St. 7 Similar methods were employed when the Communists met in halls. At one meeting in the Strand Theatre in 1929, the police exploded a tear gas bomb in the midst of a speech by the Communist, Beckie Buhay, and 32 8 c succeeded in creating a riot. ^ The Police Commission's policy was not restricted to Communist meetings alone. On the contrary, from 1929 until 1933, a number of organi-zations—particularly those adhering to pacifist principles or displaying radical tendencies on social and economic issues—experienced the effects 9 of the policy. Foremost among these was the C.C.F. party in Toronto. Indeed, Agnes Macphail, William Irvine, and J. S. Woodsworth were a l l prevented from addressing meetings within the city on particular occasions. The example of an incident that took place in January, 1931, was the clearest illustration of the Commission's attitude. The Fellowship of Reconciliation, a branch of an international organization founded in Britain and born of the conviction "that a l l differences of race, colour, creed and social problems in general should be solved by mutual under-11 standing," decided to hold an open forum for the discussion of current 12 public issues. The first of these forums was preceded by an invitation to the Board of Police Commissioners to debate the issue of free speech in Toronto with the members of the Fellowship. Asserting that the organization had communistic tendencies, Judge Emerson Coatsworth, 13 speaking for the Board, refused the invitation; moreover, the owner of the Empire Theatre refused the rental of his hall to the Fellowship on the grounds that the Police Commission had threatened to cancel his license i f he rented the h a l l . ^ A series of heated meetings between representatives of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Police Commissioners resulted in the Mayor's enunciation of the "British principle of "free speech within the law,"1^ y e t the Fellowship s t i l l found itself unable to rent any public hall in the city. The Police Commission, how-ever, insisted that i t was not prohibiting the Fellowship from holding meetings.1^ 33 The drama of this incident was re-enacted on countless occasions. Upon applying for the use of a hall, an organization was informed that the Board of Police Commissioners had no authority to grant permits and that the only task of the police was to present to the hall owner a copy of section 98 of the Criminal Code which outlined the penalties of permitting unlawful assemblies to be held on one's premises.^ Success-fully intimidated, the hall owner frequently refused to grant the use of his hall. Raymond Booth, a member of the Movement for a Christian Social 18 Order, summed up the implications of the policy in the following manner: . . . So you. see we are back at the old stage again* The Police Commission says they have no power to issue permits for public meetings and yet i t is an established fact that hall owners will not rent their halls without first obtaining the sanction of the Police Commission for fear of losing their hall license. 19 The Police Commission and Chief Draper insisted that their stated policy was—and had always been—the British principle of "free speech 20 within the law." The justification for the police action, however, was extremely tenuous. There were only two city by-laws prohibiting meetings in parks and streets—one preventing religious meetings in parks on Sundays, another prohibiting meetings on streets i f they obstructed 21 traffic. Similarly, city by-laws provided for the licensing of halls for meeting purposes by the Police Commission, but the expressed purpose of that law had been considerations of safety in building construction, 2? and not the nature of the meetings held. Judge Coatsworth, however, insisted that the policy of the Commission could be justified under section 98 of the Criminal Code, sub-section 5: 34 Any owner. . .of any building. . .who knowingly permits therein any meeting by an unlawful association. . .or any assemblage of persons who teach. . .of force, violence, or physical injury. . .shall be guilty of any offence under this section and shall be liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to imprisonment not more than five years. . . . 23 Thus, a specific issue had arisen within the city that involved the liberty of the individual and the authority of the state. The declared policy of the city had been the traditional British one of "free speech within the law;" yet, i t could be argued that the liberties of individuals and groups were being needlessly curtailed. Where, in fact, did the boundaries of liberty and authority reside? An examination of the reaction created by the policy of the Police Commission reveals that the appeal to the British tradition of free speech did not provide so simple and clear-cut an answer as had been uncritically assumed. For Judge Coatsworth^at least, the issues had been clearly drawn: The »Reds* in Toronto have been talking sedition. . . . In no way can i t be claimed that the issue i s one of the right of free speech. . . . The police have a right to intervene in any public place where there is an unlawful assembly or where an unlawful assembly is about to take place. . . . These men we are dealing with are really Bolshevists and are trying to carry on by every means, a subversive campaign against a l l legal authority. . . . It is the duty of the police to stamp out this seditious movement. It is mistaken idealism that would aid them and play into their hands just as they have planned. 24 Similarly, a police meeting attended by 350 members of the Toronto police force expressed support of the Police Commission and resolved that this association. . .goes on record as pledging our support. . .to the Chief Constable. . .in his untiring efforts to keep Communism under control in this city. 25 26 The Toronto Star viewed the situation in a different light. In fact, i t waged a vigourous campaign against what appeared to be a ludicrous misinterpretation of the concept of British tradition, for Draper and 35 the Commission were denying to the courts the ultimate responsibility of determining guilt and innocence! It is not wise. . .to allow a policeman to be his own judge, to make of himself a pedestrian court, pacing the town,and trying. . .and punishing anyone he chooses. He must summon or arrest his man, take him to court, and the decision as to guilt or innocence must be made by a respon-sible judge or magistrate. . . . The judges know their business and their business should not be taken away from them and given to the police to do with fist and boot. 27 So also, for the Star, the Draper-Coatsworth policy represented an un-wanted importation of American conceptions of justice: . . .^There i s / a growth in this city of the un-British and wholly American idea that a Chief of Police rules a l l unimportant persons by the law of the baton without taking to court those he punishes or arrests.. . . A strong-armed policy using the baton instead of the courts and knocking down anybody who does not do. . .what he i s told can only end disastrously. 28 Frequently the Star viewed the policy as the result of the machinations and excessive militarism of Chief Draper: When at any time Chief Draper has been criticized in these columns i t was with the object of reminding him that the war is over and that he is back in Canada, a civic employee of this municipality. A l l this paper has been trying to do is to demobilize General Draper. If we ever succeed in that, we shall have done him and the city an excellent service. 29 The continued restriction on organizations in the rental of halls, -amid professions of adherence to the principle of "free speech within the law," by the Board of Police Commissioners^led the Star to the conclusion that what was needed was a new, de-militarized Police Chief, and an institutional reorganization of the Board of Police Commissioners to remove the anomaly of having members of the Police Commission, like Coatsworth, sitting in the police court in judgment on the very policy 30 that they had had a large part in formulating. In the pursuance of this goal and the demand for the reality of "British free speech," the 36 Star was to wage a tireless campaign. 31 For similar reasons, the C.C.F. in Toronto entered the struggle on behalf of a more liberal police policy. Indeed, throughout 1933, a number of its meetings were convened for the specific purpose of 32 "re-establishing the rights of free speech." At a capacity meeting of C.C.F. Clubs in the Oddfellows Hall, March 27, 1933, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: . . .whereas i t has been revealed that there is in effect a police censorship and subterranean intimidation of owners of halls and theatres in Toronto: Be i t resolved that this meeting strongly condemns the action of the police in illegally intimidating owners of halls. . . and in the prevention of lawful associations from holding public meetings, and calls upon the Board of Control to take steps immediately to end this situation in the city of Toronto The Communist Party in Toronto,^ as the chief victim of the 35 policy, together with the Canadian Labor Defence League, entered the controversy in the name of "free speech." In fact, however, i t reserved its strongest condemnation not so much for Draper and the Police Commission, as for what i t termed the "bourgeois" defenders of "free speech": . . . A l l are agreed on the suppression of the working class movement. . . .the question is how i t should be legal methods. . . .the Police Commission believes in more summary, direct methods. . . . A l l of them are the hired lackeys of capitalism and aid and abet its worst crimes against the working class. Only the mass struggle of the workers can win free speech and free assembly. . . . On with the fight! 36 For the Communists, "free speech" implied the thorough destruction of the capitalist system and the inevitable triumph of the down-trodden masses in the form of a "worker and poor farmers* state." In their view, an appeal to the courts in the manner of the Star was but a facade for bourgeois ideology. 33 done by perfectly 37 From the University of Toronto came a forthright statement in the form of a public letter signed by 68 professors,"^ affirming belief in the "British principles of free speech": The attitude which the Toronto Police Commission has assumed towards public discussion and political and social problems makes clear that the right of free speech. . .is in danger of suppression in this city. This right has for generations been considered one of the proudest heritages of the British peoples and to restrict or nullify i t . . .is short-sighted, inexpedient and intolerable. It is the plain duty of the citizen to protest publicly against any such curtailment of his rights. . . . 38 According to, a poll conducted by the staff of the Varsity... the under-graduate newspaper, the students supported the professors* stand by a majority of four to one, while the university staff endorsed i t by a 39 majority of three to one. Similarly, by a vote of 211 to 57, a Hart House debate concluded "that in the opinion of this House, Toronto deserves her reputation for intolerance."^ The Mail and Empire reported that the policy of the Toronto police force had formed the basis 41 for the preponderance of the arguments in support of this conclusion. The organ of the United Church, the New Outlook, likewise condemned the Police Commission's policy. In an editorial, January, 1931, i t commented: . . .the people in Canada who are doing the most to encourage communism are those who are so persistently trying to destroy the reasonable right of free speech on the part of those who are more or less enthusiastic for i t . 42 The Labor Party of Toronto saw the Draper-Coatsworth policy as one fraught with imminent dangers for any type of radical organization. During the height of the controversy over the Fellowship of Reconciliation, i t passed the following recommendation: 38 Be i t resolved by the Labor Party of Toronto, the representative of 47 non-Communist trade unions and labor organizations. . .that the city council be asked to do what is necessary to procure suitable amendments to the law constituting the Board of Police Commissioners to the end that this Board shall, like a l l other legislative bodies, be responsible to the electors. 43 Similarly 7 the Toronto District Labor Council, an affiliate of the Trades 4 and Labor Congress and representing 25,000 trade union workers in Toronto, passed a resolution calling for the resignation of Chief Draper and an 45 investigation into the Police Commission by a royal commission. A significant body of opinion thus declared itself opposed to the policy of Draper on the grounds that i t thoroughly violated the British principle of free speech. The arguments presented by these bodies were not always uniform, yet the end result was similar: that i s , agreement that the limits of free speech, undefined in law, had been too narrowly-conceived in o f f i c i a l policy. It is extremely difficult to discover how far the opinion expressed by the sectors of Toronto's population discussed were representative of the city as a whole. If i t was, why was the policy 46 of the Police Commission allowed to remain unchecked for so long? In fact, further examination of the opinion expressed reveals that the lines of controversy were not so rigidly conceived. For the Toronto Globe ^ the question of free speech was not the real issue; on the contrary, the paramount value at stake was the preservation of institutions from atheism and Bolshevism. In an editorial, "The Reds or the People," the Globe asked, Are they ^bhe people/ to submit to a policy which will let loose a stench of Soviet propaganda, a campaign against the Church and educational systems. . .the rearing of atheism, a destruction of the economic and political structures of the country? . . . Patriotic Christian Canadians cannot possibly abandon the traditions on which this country was founded. . . . 48 39 C l e a r l y , the Globe was p l a c i n g a f a r d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n upon the "Communist t h r e a t " than the Star. Moreover, as f a r as the Globe was concerned, t o r a i s e the issue o f free speech, and, consequently, to suggest the need f o r the reorganization of municipal p o l i c e administration, was merely t o c l e a r the path f o r the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f undesirable American methods i n t o the Canadian system o f l o c a l p o l i t i c s i . . .there i s , o f course, no challenge to f r e e speech. What the P o l i c e Commissioners have sought to curb i s trouble-making and s e d i t i o u s speech. . . , 4 9 . . .Clothe the C i t y Council with power to d i c t a t e to the p o l i c e and the way i s open f o r the r e p e t i t i o n here u l t i m a t e l y o f what i s now occurring i n New York. 50 Anti-American sentiment served both sides o f the controversy equally. S i m i l a r l y the Telegram saw no p r i n c i p l e o f free speech, at issue; i n f a c t , the p o l i c y o f the P o l i c e Commission ensured the very p r i n c i p l e o f free speech from the Communist thre a t . On the p u b l i c a t i o n of the 68 professors* l e t t e r , the Telegram commented: Nothing that any member o f the u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f can say w i l l a l i e n a t e p u b l i c opinion from i t s appreciation of the value o f free speech. . . . But i f the reference o f the educationists i s to i n c i d e n t s which took place. . . i n connection with the gathering o f avowed Communists, the i s s u e o f free speech i s not involved. The p o l i c e are supported by a majority o f the c i t i z e n s i n p r o h i b i t i n g i n a p u b l i c place, a gathering which might lead to a breach of the peace. The sympathy which members of the u n i v e r s i t y have displayed toward the cause should suggest t o those who clamor f o r a forum that the campus of the u n i v e r s i t y . . . i s open t o them as a s h e l t e r from the c o l d b l a s t s o f adverse c r i t i c i s m . The u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c e may be s u f f i c i e n t l y c o l o u r - b l i n d to ignore any Red-tinge that may colour t h e i r orations. 51 I t would seem reasonable to conclude that the Telegram, the acknowledged mouthpiece o f the Orange Order i n Toronto, was expressing the opinion o f that body. In any case, the r e s o l u t i o n passed by the Grand Black Chapter o f North America i n a convention i n Toronto i n 1 9 3 1 , c a l l i n g f o r the disarming and deportation o f a l l Communists from Canada, and the 40 compelling of a l l voters to subscribe to belief in God and allegiance to the King leaves slight ground for opposition to the firm policy under-52 taken by the municipal Police Commission. The Sentinel and Orange and 53 Protestant Advocate. the of f i c ia l organ of the Order i n Toronto, commented editorially/ The question arises, should Communist meetings be suppressed. The Sentinel is firmly of the opinion that they should, and whatever measures the Chief of Police finds i t necessary to employ should have the approval of a l l good citizens Hyde Park in London has been cited where such freedom is permitted. But some forget what happened in Britain as a direct result of such latitude. First i t produced the great railway strike and then the general strike that would have thrown the country into chaos had i t lasted much longer. Then they ignore our own experience in the attempt to establish Soviet government in Winnipeg. 54 Such a view, however, did not necessarily reflect the views of a l l the members of the Orange Order in Toronto. The Toronto District Labor Council was mainly composed of Orangemen, yet i t had registered a distinct protest against Draper's activities. A significant body of business interests saw the issue in terms similar to that of the Globe and Telegram. The Financial Post commented: . . .a thoroughly organized and ably directed propaganda is in progress in Canada. . .for the destruction of our economic institutions and the devitalization of the morale of our citizens. . . . There has been plenty of evidence in Toronto recently that unsuspecting idealists are often made the tools of this Communistic activity, "financed and directed by the propagandist arm of the Soviet dictatorship. 56 At a high point of the controversy—January 1931—Frank A. Rolph, President of the Toronto Board of Trade, and President of the Imperial Bank of Canada, publicly expressed his "great admiration of our police 5 7 force and confidence in the Board of Police Commissioners,"''and urged his audience "to make known their disapproval of the insidious campaign 41 , . .to discredit the Police Commission." The Canadian Forum did not interpret the attitude of the businessmen in an entirely favourable light: Behind a l l the moral and legal dialectics there are economic developments which are largely responsible for the clash of ideas. At no time in the past history of Canada has there been such an accumulation of wealth at the top of the social scale and such an accumulation of distress on the lower levels. . . . A small group of men have enormously increased their wealth and their power during the last year or two and this group is the real power behind the throne of the Toronto Police Commission. 59 It has been noted that particular labor organizations expressed vigorous disapproval of what appeared to them to be a violation of British tradition. That interpretation of the British tradition, however, was not uniform throughout the labor movement. The Labor Leader, a labor newspaper printed in Toronto, commented in the following manner: The Communist today has no more right to meet and advocate armed revolution than would a convention of Chicago gangsters have any right to meet in Queen's Park and advocate the hold-up of a bank. . . . To concede the 'red* the licence to propagandize. . .would be tantamount to feeding and organizing a Red army in Canada. . . . The question of free speech has never been the issue. . . . We must use force to preserve our liberties for those to whom freedom of speech is a boon won by the blood of millions of Britons. 60 Similarly, the interpretation placed on events by the 68 r professors of the university did not gain universal acceptance within that institution. The results of the poll conducted by the Varsity revealed that 72 of the staff members had declared themselves opposed to the 61 "free speech" of the 68 professors. The majority of the 72 were from the science and medical faculties,and, in fact, reflected more of apathy 62 than disagreement as to principles. Of more significance, however, was the controversy that the publication of the letter created over the 42 right of members of the university, a state-supported institution, to express an opinion on public issues. The Globe and the Mail and Empire called upon the Board of Governors to censure the offending members of 63 the staff. The Board, however, after several lengthy meetings, rested content with a public declaration pointing out that the letter represented the private opinions of certain professors^ and was not to be regarded as 64 an of f i c i a l expression of opinion by the University of Toronto. As the Canadian Forum pointed out^ however, Sir William Mulock, Chancellor of the University, came out boldly where the Governors failed, by delivering a speech in which he called upon "a united Canada to stamp out the treasonable and insidious virus with which wicked men would inoculate 65 the Canadian body politic: Sir W. Mulock and Canon Cody laughed and slapped each others knees at the intimation that the professors were ^ being answered unofficially by the university authorities. Finally, i t is evident that the United Church was not necessarily of a single mind over police policy. If the Mew Outlook ^  chose to inter-pret the issue in the light of "free speech," that did not represent the view of a l l the Toronto members of the United Church. Indeed, Judge Cbatsworth—perhaps the most vehement defender of police policy—was himself an active member of the United Church. The Canadian Forum noted 68 that his influence was strong in the councils of the United Church. At the height of the controversy in January, 1931, the Telegram took the opportunity of eliciting the opinions on the subject of the most prominent women of the Toronto East Presbyterial of the United Church. The view 69 of Miss Augusta Gilkison was not untypical: I do not think these Communists should be given freedom of public speech. Our country is f u l l of foreigners now. . . . When an issue of this kind comes up i t is no 43 time to start an academic discussion on free speech. Thus, the policy of the Toronto Board of Police Commissioners over the holding of public meetings occasioned considerable controversy within the city. In effect, each side claimed to represent the majority of public opinion. A Toronto Liberal member of parliament, Sam Factor (Spadina), asserted in the House of Commons: It is unfortunate that some of these gentlemen came to Toronto and could not get a hall to speak in, but I want to assure them. . .that so far as the city of Toronto is concerned, the majority of our people s t i l l believe in free speech. . .and the time is soon coming when our police will assume a fair and reasonable attitude on this question. 71 At the same time, the Conservative, John R. MacNicol (Toronto Northwest), told the House: . . .1 may observe that behind me is the almost unanimous opinion of the city of Toronto. In the municipal election of 1929, Mr. J. Macdonald7a Communist, ran on a free speech platform for the Board of Control, and received. . • 536 votes out of a population of approximately 700,000. . . . This goes to show that the people of Toronto are not behind what they know to be the objective of those who are advocating so-called free speech. 72 In view of such assertions, i t is extremely difficult to calculate the exact degree of support for the disputants. The Star had a much higher circulation than the Globe, the Telegram or the Mail and Empire, and gained steadily in the period under examination.^ The cause of its steady increase, however, lay more in its aggressive sales campaigns and its spectacular and adventurous methods of gathering news than in 74 its stand on "British" c i v i l liberties. Both the Canadian Forum and the New Outlook had relatively small circulations^and, in fact, both declined appreciably during the depression.'''-' Similarly the Communist Party and the CLiD^L. represented distinct minorities within the city. . _ . 44 It is equally difficult to evaluate the extent of the division of labor opinion, particularly when i t is remembered that only a very few members of a labor force of over 219,000 were members of unions 76 that saw f i t to comment on the issues involved. In addition, there are numerous indications throughout the period that a significant section of the population viewed the entire problem with a large degree of 77 apathy. Perhaps the one judgment that may be stated with safety is that a certain amount of support could be found for every attitude to the issue. The policy of the Toronto Police Commission, in raising the issues of liberty and authority in concrete terms, thus illustrated that the appeal to "British tradition" engendered a good deal of confusion. In fact, it brought no real consensus as to the precise spirit and meaning of the phrase. Indeed, Delegate J. Gil of the Toronto District Labor Council could go so far as to suggest a "twenty-four hour strike of a l l 78 unions to bring Draper and the Commission to their knees," for their disregard of "British liberties," while others could applaud the same policy by the denial that the question of British "free speech" was even remotely involved. 45 CHAPTER V SECTION 98 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE In outlawing the Communist Party we are not alone, but the company in which we move is select. Japan, Jugo-Slavia and Bulgaria have proscribed Communism. . . . With Japs, Jugo-Slavs, Italians, Bulgars and Poles, Canada marches toward a higher social order. Only in backward and decadent countries like Britain, the United States, France . . .and the other British Dominions can the horrid plots of the Marxist idolators be carried out in the broad light of day. (Canadian Forum. January, 1932) Section 98 of the Criminal Code was the offspring of the fear created by the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919.^ Passed as an order-in-council after only forty minutes of discussion in the House of Commons and later incorporated into the Criminal Code, section 98 was designed as a potent weapon against the threat described by the Minister of Justice, Hugh Guthrie, as an organized movement of sedition in Canada, "seeking to cause dissatisfaction among His Majesty*s subjects. . .and in / T t s / ultimate end. . .to overturn the government i t s e l f . " ^ Section 98 defined an unlawful organization as one whose professed purpose " is to bring about any governmental;, industrial or economic change within Canada by the use of force, violence, or physical injury to person or 3 property. . . . " The property of such an association was liable to confiscation, without the use of a warrant on the mere suspicion of i ts activities. The penalties for membership in the association included a maximum prison term of twenty years; moreover, in the case of anyone who attended a meeting, advocated the principles, wore the insignia, or distributed the literature of such an association, " i t shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary, that he is a member of such an 46 4 association." Hence, Section 98 legalized guilt by association, and placed the onus of proof of innocence upon the accused in contrast to the traditional British principle that a man was considered innocent until he had been proven guilty. Section 98 further stated that any owner of a building "who knowingly permits therein any meeting of an unlawful association. . .shall be guilty of an offence under this section and liable to a fine of $5000 and a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. Finally, the section outlined the duty of every employee in the government of Canada "to seize. . .any book, newspaper. . .(etc.) upon discovery of the same in the Post Office mails of Canada. . .and when seized and taken, without delay to transmit the same. . .to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police." At the same time, Section 133 of the Criminal Code guaranteeing in law freedom to criticize the government in good faith, was 5 repealed. The decade following 1919 had witnessed five attempts by the Liberals in the House of Commons to secure the repeal of Section 98 on the grounds that the act was unduly oppressive and anti-British in the severity of the penalties imposed, and in its denial of the principle of innocence until guilt has been proven. On each occasion, however, the 6 attempt had foundered upon the rock of Conservative senatorial intransigence. 7 The action of the Henry government in August, 1931, with the aid of the R.C.M.P. and the Toronto municipal police, in arresting eight Communist party leaders and charging them under Section 98 on three counts —belonging to an illegal organization, acting as leaders of an illegal organization, and being parties to a "seditious conspiracy contrary to g the provisions of the Criminal Code" —represented the first successful o attempt to make use of Section 98. The arrests and the use of Section 98 47 clearly raised questions as to the validity and justness of the law— the more so as the Communist Barty had enjoyed a legal public existence since its founding in Canada in 1921. The principal issue of the t r i a l that occurred in October and November, 1931, was the objectives of the Communist Party. The prosecutor, Joseph Sedgewick, attempted to prove that the party, as an acknowledged member of the Comintern, the Communist International, implicitly accepted the necessity of the use of violent 10 means for the overthrow of the existing government, and, hence, was guilty under Section 98 of being an unlawful association. The accused, on the other hand, denied that the object was to "create" a revolution. Tim Buck, in his three-hour defence, asserted: We are placed on t r i a l for teaching something we do not teach but, while we do not advocate i t , we are forced to realize that force and violence are the inevitable outcome of this struggle. . . . If the workers are learning about force and violence today, i t is not from us. We do not consider i t necessary. We do not believe government can be overthrown by conspiracy... Parties do not make revolutions. We predict force and violence in the class-struggle which wi l l grow to a war greater and more terrible than any in history. 11 12 The conviction of the eight communist leaders, together with the sub-sequent use in June, 1933, of Section 98 against Joe Derry, a member of the Young Communist League in Toronto, ensured that the attention of the city would be directed toward a consideration of the principles involved. The Conservative government of Ontario, responsible for the use of Section 98, insisted that the issue of liberty was not involved. The Honourable William H. Price, the Attorney-General, justified that con-viction in the following terms: I am in favour of free speech any time, anywhere. I want to make i t clear, however, that Section 98 is not meant to curtail free speech, but to guard against any outbreak of force or violence. . . . There are those 48 amongst us who think. . .change cannot be brought about without sanguinary c i v i l war. . . . These same people, desirous as they are of overturning the British type of government, with fine inconsistency r a i l against Section 98 of the Criminal Code because they claim i t is un-British . . . . I cannot persuade myself that what I have quoted to you is un-Britishj in fact, it-seems to me to be in line with the history of our constitutional progress. 13 Similarly, Mr. MacNicol, (Conservative, Toronto, North West) in defending Section 98 in the House of Commons, asserted that i t was the very piece of legislation that guaranteed the freedom of speech that Canada, unlike 14 Russia, possessed. The manner in which the issue was presented by the Conservatives thus ensured that the reaction to i t would be complex. For the Globe. the use of Section 98 was but the natural outcome of the policy that Chief Draper had been pursuing for three years.' The Globe's sole complaint was that i t had not been carried out with sufficient speed.* . . .The nature of the outcome /of the t r i a l / . • • vindicates the attitude of this paper. . . . The Toronto police force has long since recognized the reality of this menace of organized Communism and took timely steps to control i t . The Province and the Dominion, however, had to be prodded into action by increasingly serious events and public opinion. 15 The Telegram viewed the conviction of the Communists in similar terms; moreover, i t commented upon the validity of Section 98 as the very vindication of "British tradition." . . .ffihe jury's verdict/ was an answer to those who have vapored about free speech while the Communists were perfecting an organization to destroy freedom of association in this country. . . . Communism has i ts strength among those who are not native Canadians. . . . None of them have the makings of good citizenship as good citizenship is understood in Canada. The Crown was amply justified in asking for the confiscation of Communist property and for the deportation of the members . . .where deportation is possible. 49 . . .The moderation of the sentence of five years imprisonment. . .should convince the offenders of the superiority of British practice to that of their spiritual fatherland. . . . The Russian experiment i s on such a shaky foundation that drastic methods are possibly necessary for the suppression of dissaffection. Under the British system, where government is "broad-based upon the people's wi l l , " i t is only necessary that the sentence should be sufficiently severe to indicate national disapprobation of the offence. 16 That this represented at least the of f i c i a l view of the Grange Order is evident from the record of its appeals to the Federal government "to 17 enact legislation that the spread of Communism. . .be forbidden." The Financial Post saw no question of the contravention of British principles, only the vindication of a policy they had long advocated. Its editorial comment i s indicative of the significant change of atmos-phere in which the conviction had been carried out: . . .No one who has read the Financial Post since 1917 can be surprised by the evidence that came out at the t r i a l of the Communists in Toronto. . . . Possibly no campaign conducted by the Financial Post has ever brought greater unpopularity and less immediate credit than its fourteen years of exposure of the activities of Soviet agitators in Canada. 18 The Star found itself on the horns of a dilemma. It had expended much energy in pointing out to Chief Draper that a correct police policy did not employ force, but reserved the determination of guilt and innocence to the courts of law, for herein lay the crux of British tradition. At the same time, however, i t objected to the use of Section 98 in the courts on the grounds that the law itself had not been conceived in "the spirit of the British tradition:" . . .If the enemies of society have the nerve to ask that the Criminal Code be tinkered with in order to protect them, they wil l find the Canadian people against them to a man. The Criminal Code, however, was tinkered with. . ..in the year 1919. . . and earnest efforts have been made since then, by 50 nearly a l l intelligent persons. . .to have the code untinkered. In most countries at about that time, criminal codes were made drastic for thrones were falling. . .and in nearly every country including Canada, hundreds of thousands of soldiers back from foreign wars were being disbanded. Nobody knew just what might happen anywhere . . . . The objection which exists to this section of the code is that i t , having been adopted hastily at a time of excitement, is out of harmony with our institu-tions and i s misunderstood and abused by undemocratic and reactionary local authorities, some of whom believe that, using the code as a shelter, the police can dispense lawful procedure altogether and deal as they choose with any person they accuse of holding radical opinions. 19 Upon the conviction of the Communists in Ontario, the Star was to conduct it s appeal for the liberties of the individual more frequently on the general grounds of "British justice" than particular law, and was to advocate vigourously the repeal of Section 98: . . .In order to suppress. . .a puny fraction of the people, a whole majority of them is affronted and provoked to overthrow an authority which proves itself incredibly stupid. The supreme interest of the state is to know and feel sure that the great mass of the workers are loyal and devoted and in no way needing to be held in check by the provisions of Section 98. There is a type of man who feels that he has no concern with any repressive law which does not repress himself or his friends. . . . But he is wrong. 20 The Communist Party itself, again the victim, denounced Section 98 most vehemently, yet i t was forced to conduct its campaign not through the party itself, but through its paper, the Worker; and i t s front organizations, particularly the C.L.D.L., for with the conviction of the eight Communist leaders in 1931> the Communist Party in Ontario had>by implication^been declared illegal. A series of Repeal Conferences under the auspices of the C.L.D.L. were held in Toronto calling for the repeal 21 of Section 98 and the release of the eight political prisoners. Funds were solicited to support the families of those Communists serving 51 22 the sentences, and a veritable flood of pamphlets sought to point out the fascist character of Section 98 and the recent conviction. The C.L.D.L. estimated that by 1934, 5,000,000 pieces of literature had been dis t r i -buted; however, i t is impossible to know precisely how much of this work 23 was carried out within Toronto'itself. J The interpretation of the issue by the Communists was significantly different from that of the Star. Section 98 was but one more flagrant example of the on-going class war, but one more example of "bourgeois justice." The remedy did not lie in the appeal to British constitutional tradition, or to the assurance that the pre-1919 Criminal Code provided 24 sufficient protection against organized sedition. The only solution lay in the creation of a "united front" of the masses to agitate for the removal, not only of Section 98, but of a l l laws against sedition and 25 vagrancy, ' for they were the instruments of the ruling class. The main focus of the campaign, however, rested on the demand-for the release of the eight Kingston "political" prisoners, and the constant attack upon such I'labor-fakers" as the Star for their failure to advocate "total repeal of Section 98." The Worker commented that . . .the danger is that a few t r i v i a l amendments will be made to Section 98 to hold back the militant mass movement while the eight leaders are not released. 26 For the C.C.F. Party, Section 98 represented an invasion of c i v i l liberties—an over-extension of the power of the state against the liberties of the individual. Its official attitude was delineated in Section 12 of the Regina Manifesto in 1933: In recent years, Canada has seen an alarming growth of fascist tendencies among a l l governmental authorities . . . . Section 98 of the Criminal Code which has been used as a weapon of political oppression by a panic-52 stricken capitalist government must be wiped off the statute book. . . . We stand for f u l l economic, political, and religious liberty for a l l . 27 Like the Communists, the C.C.F. tended to view Section 98 as a flagrant piece of class legislation, the work of "a panic-stricken capitalist government"; yet i t did not draw the same ultimate implications as the Communists, for i t refused to regard a l l law (e.g., laws against sedition and vagrancy) as only milder forms of capitalist oppression. Hence, for the C.C.F. the answer lay not in the triumph of one class over another, but in constitutional cooperation in the creation of a "cooperative commonwealth." It was for this reason that i t refused to accept the invitation of the C.L.D.L. in June, 1933, to participate in a "united front" movement to secure the repeal of Section 98: We reiterate. . .that Section 98 of the Criminal Code, which has been used as a weapon of political oppression by a panic-stricken capitalist government, must be wiped off the statute books and political prisoners who are imprisoned under i t be released. We believe that these ends cannot be achieved except by securing control of the government. We believe in constitutional methods to attain this result. On that point there is a fundamental cleavage between us and the leaders of your organization who maintain c i v i l strife is inevitable. This policy would in our opinion result in the intensification of political oppression. We are unable. . .to see any useful purpose. . .in such joint mass meetings, delegations, and demonstrations as you suggest. 28 In effect, the difficulties involved in presenting a united stand to secure the repeal of Section 98 were the result of fundamental cleavages over the interpretation of the meaning of " c i v i l liberties." A considerable diversity of opinion is to be noted in the labor organizations* attitude to Section 98. The affiliated unions of the Workers* Unity League supported the "united front" of the C.L.D.L. in demanding total repeal of Section 98 and the immediate release of a l l political prisoners. Similarly a number of foreign workers* 53 29 organizations supported the "united front" appeal. The question of the repeal of Section 98 was presented annually to the Trades and Labor Congress, and the position they adopted i s of some significance. The resolution adopted called upon the government to repeal Section 98 of the Criminal Code, but the section calling for '•unconditional release of the eight political prisoners" was substituted by "as i t unduly restricts freedom of speech, press, and association," before the resolution 30 received the approval of the convention. The Toronto District Labor Council presented i ts own petition to the Bennett government for repeal of Section 98. Unlike those of the C . L . D . L v i t did not ask for the release of the eight: . . . It is the opinion of the delegates of the Toronto District Labor Council that such an Act. . .not only destroys a l l that Labor is seeking. . .but is placing a l l Labor organizations in the category of Unlawful Associations at any time that the present Government of this Country desires to do so. . . . We cannot but feel that Section 98 of the Criminal Code violated a l l ethics of Parliamentary Government. . . . We consider i t s revision as necessary. 31 It must be noted, however, that the C.L.D.L. claimed that a number of affil iates of the Trades and Labor Congress supported i ts appeal for a 32 "united front" on the issue of Section 98. Two labor papers of Toronto, the Labor Leader and the Canadian Labor Press.—both claiming to speak for affiliates of the T . L . C . — supported the Conservative government's use of Section 98 against the Communists. It i s impossible to estimate how far the opinion expressed in these papers represented significant sectors of labor opinion. The Labor Leader asserted: The recent conviction and sentencing of the Communist leaders is in line with the policy advocated by the Labor  Leader for a number of years. . .but i t could be a grave mistake to suppose that this w i l l mean the end of Communist 54 activities in the Dominion. . . . The only way to fight this secret menace to orderly and constitutional progress i s by legitimate counter-propaganda based on 03 the known and solid foundations of democratic government. The paper evidently saw no incongruity in justifying i t s position in terms of British liberal constitutional tradition and in applauding the use of a law that contravened that very British tradition in important particulars. A controversy over the essential justness of Section 98 stirred the Councils of the United Church. In 1932 the Board of Evangelism and Social Service commented upon Section 98 in the following manner: . . . The Church, speaking in the name of Christian morality, cannot call for the total repeal of the Section (98) so far as i t declares any society to be unlawful i f i t seeks to effect changes by force or violence. . . . But some details of that section invite criticism as opening the way to harshness and injustice in administration. . . . The church holds that co-relative to respect for order and authority, in times of crisis, i t is the obligation of public men to refrain from public utterances of needless harshness, more especially. . . i f they so challenge the right of agitation as to be out of accord with the section of the criminal code which explicitly sanctions such advocacy. 34 The spirit in which the law was conceived and applied was the real cause for condemnation. That this did not represent the view of the entire church, however, emerges from comments in the New Outlook over the mutual recriminations that took place, after the conference, over policy as i t 35 had been set down. The former Conservative Prime Minister, Arthur Meighen, a member of the United Church, wrote in answer to a request for a donation to the church: . . . Certainly there are many who are doing excellent service and who have kept their feet on the ground through these difficult times, but there are so many others who are making the maintenance of law and order increasingly difficult that one becomes convinced that the Church as a 55 whole has to be made to waken up to the consequences of the rather extensive delinquencies now prevalent among i t s Ministers. 36 Finally, i t i s of interest to indicate the attitude of certain fundamen-talist sects in Toronto. The Toronto Association for the Extension of Jesus Christ's Kingdom in the World wrote to R. B. Bennett: . . .1 feel that you should be thoroughly informed on this subject. A great many Christian people firmly believe that there is an organized plan to demoralize every nation and get them away from God. . . /jHe are/ admirers of your firm attitude in opposing the organized Communist element in our land. This Association is trying in a very small way to combat this evil. . . . Since September 1932, over 51,000 tracts and booklets. . .have been circulated. 37 Clearly the struggle of Christianity against atheism took precedence over a supposed concern for individual rights—particularly when they were the rights of those assumed to be morally distasteful creatures. An examination of the attitude of groups within Toronto toward Section 98 has revealed a complex situation similar to that observed in the controversy over free speech and the Toronto Police Commission. The balance of opinion seemed to l i e on the side of authority, i f not in numbers, at least among those in policy-snaking positions. On a specific issue, the umbrella term "British c i v i l liberties" tended to create a good deal of confusion. The content given that concept tended to reflect an interpretation of the degree of particular threats to existing institutions and, more than that, a specific conception of what the term "Canadianism" implied. In fact, the entire controversy revealed a significant lack of consensus as to what the term meant. While Section 98 and the conviction of the eight Communist leaders could become a subject of political dis-cussion, the debate frequently tended to degenerate into an internal controversy among particular groups; hence, as a result, no clear-cut 56 political issue of c i v i l liberties on which opposing factions could align themselves emerged. In effect, no one denied adherence to cherished « II British c i v i l liberties; the problem arise from differing conceptions of what that adherence entailed. V 57 CHAPTER VI THE SEDITION TRIAL OF A. E. SMITH AND THE REGINA RIOT This is a state t r i a l . This is a political t r i a l . . . . A nation that suppresses free speech goes to pieces. . . . If that man loses his liberty i t wi l l not be long before you and I. . .lose our liberty. 1 (E. J. McMurray, Defence Counsel for A. E. Smith, March 7, 1934) The sedition t r i a l in Toronto, February 1934, of A. E. Smith arose directly out of the campaign for the repeal of Section 98 and the release of the eight Communist leaders. A. E. Smith had been an active Methodist minister in western Canada for twenty years^ until his voluntary retirement from the Manitoba Conference in 1920. After having served as the member for Brandon in the Manitoba legislature, he came to Toronto and became 2 involved in the activities of the Canadian Labor Defence League. As secretary of the C.L.E.L. during the 1930*s, Smith was intimately in-volved in the campaign for the repeal of Section 98. 3 A play, "Eight Men Speak," by the Progressive Arts Club, pro-testing the conviction of the Communist leaders and the allegedly deliberate shooting of Tim Buck in his cell in Kingston, had been banned from presen-tation in the Standard Theatre in Toronto by the Board of Police Commis-sioners. At a protest meeting, January 17, 1934, under the auspices of the C.L.D.L., one act of the play was presented and Smith, in denouncing the ban, was alleged to have accused Bennett personally of the attempted murder of Tim Buck. Detective Nursey of the Toronto "Red Squad," that branch of the police force whose duty i t was to investigate Communist activities, asserted that Smith, in his address, uttered the following words: 58 . . .1 charge Bennett and hold him personally responsible for the shooting of Tim Buck in his c e l l . . . . It was done on the direct orders of the Bennett government. . . . Bennett gave the orders to shoot Tim Buck. 5 The result of the speech was the arrest of Smith by the city police and 6 his indictment on a charge of sedition, though not under Section 98. That the question of "liberty" should emerge from the t r i a l was ensured by the defence counsel's interpretation of the charge: It is an amazing thing and I often wonder i f I am in a dream as I stand here. . . . A man is being tried for free speech. . . . They say the Englishman who is free to speak in Hyde Park cannot do i t here. . . . Our police won't stand for i t . . . . The real justice in Canada i s the justice that thinks of sedition as something akin to treason, not slander, impetuosity or extremity. 7 The tenuous evidence presented by the police in the form of two identical long-hand reports of the "exact words" of Smith's twenty minute oration— reports that took only four minutes to read—resulted in the verdict of "not guilty" and Smith's consequent release. However, the entire episode had again forced the problem of liberty and the individual to the fore-front of political consideration in Toronto. The reaction occasioned by the t r i a l was one of the most vigourous 8 that the city experienced. Indeed, the Star poked fun at the universal fear i t inspired in the police officials: Even newspaper men had trouble getting past the array of uniformed constables and plain-clothesmen. "Are you a juryman?" was the oft-repeated question. "No? Well, you can't get in here.11 Only when one newspaperman, known to the police, identified another, would the care-ful constables allow him near the courtroom. Even then reporters were told emphatically they couldn't go in the front door,—side doors for them. 9 A study of that reaction among particular groups, however, is of signifi-cance for i t most clearly reveals the complexity of the problem of liberty and authority in Toronto of the 30*s. 59 Characteristically, the Telegram, the Globe, and the Mail and Empire« like the prosecuting attorney, Peter White, saw no question of c i v i l liberty at stake; On the contrary, White insisted: In no sense are we attacking the right of free speech. He may freely and fully criticize the acts of a government in Canada. . .just so long as those expressions do not contravene the law. . . ,10 The very fact that the t r i a l was held was, for the Telegram, the supreme vindication of British tradition: It might have been thought that Rev. A. E. Smith and his associates. . .would have been delighted with the opportunity afforded by Mr. Smith's indictment to prove his allegation that a deliberate attempt was made to murder Tim Buck in Kingston Penitentiary. On the contrary, they brand that opportunity as a "crowning injustice". . . . Yet nothing else is to be expected of those who, clamouring for free speech, are unwilling to accept the responsibility of answering for any breach of the law in their utterance. The courts provide the only forum in which to test whether there has been a breach of the law. The test should be welcomed by anyone who really values free speech. 11 It i s interesting to compare the Star's attitude on the need for holding a t r i a l with that of the Telegram: . . . . The prosecution of Mr. Smith on the charge of sedition was ill-advised on the part of the authorities and seemed to have its origin in the activity of police-men rather than in the sound consideration of the matter by authorities more competent in handling the affairs of the Crown. If Mr. Smith. . .had said anything about the Right Honorable R. B. Bennett that was unlawful for one man to say of another, he could have been prosecuted for slander. . . . Why should i t be regarded as seditious to attack Mr. Bennett and not seditious to attack Hon. H. H. Stevens?. . . .Is i t to be considered seditious to attack a party leader one year when he holds office, and not seditious the next year when he is out of office? 12 For the Communists and the C.L.D.L.?the charge was a serious step in the growing "fascization" of the capitalist government. The Worker 60 commented: A. E. Smith and, through him, the C . L . D . L . , i s being attacked under the sedition laws for their continued struggle against Section 98. . . . /it i s / but a step forward in the direction of a total prohibition of free speech. 13 The means for arresting that danger, as in the struggle against Section 98, was the creation of a united working class front to agitate actively for the withdrawal of the charge. At a meeting of 3,600 persons in Massey Hall , Smith counselled his listenersJ . . . You must determine, comrades;," to present a united front of the working class of this country. 15 A significant number of organizations responded to that demand. That the course was not nearly so clear to a l l organizations, however, is evident from the kind of confusion that ensued. After several hours of heated debate, the Toronto District Labor Council passed a resolution protesting against the holding of the t r i a l of Smith before the Federal government had held an investigation into the truth or falsity of Tim Buck's statements that he had been shot at, by the prison guards, at 16 Kingston. However, the Labor Council refused the C.L .D.L. ' s invitation to participate in a mass rally in order to protest the Government's policy. J. W. Buckley, secretary of the Council, attributed the reasons for the Council's actions to the Defence League's tactics. He asserted, There can be no united front when any organization attempts to disrupt this movement with i ts own special dogmas. 17 Hence, to take a forthright stand on an issue involving " c i v i l liberties" had the distinct disadvantage of seemingly throwing the trade unionists into the arms of the Communists. In this, the leaders of the labor 18 organization, at least, were unwilling to acquiesce. 61 The effects of the confusion resulting from an issue of c i v i l liberties were most serious for the Ontario section of the C.C.F. party, and i t was in Toronto that the most serious disruption occurred. In fact, the controversy was the immediate cause of the suspension of the C.C.F. party in Ontario by the National Council. The Labor Conference T O section 7 of the party in Toronto responded to the C.L.D.L.»s appeal for a "united front" to protest the arrest of Smith. At a mass rally on February 14, 1934, held by the "A. E. Smith United Defence Conference," a C.C.F. spokesman assured the meeting that the C.C.F. party favored 20 united protest action in support of Smith. Three days later, the Ontario Provincial Council issued an order prohibiting party members from joining 21 the protest against the sedition indictment. The U.F.O. and Club Sections of the Ontario C.C.F. party had joined to repudiate the stated 22 policy of the Labor Conference. The reasons for that action were bound up with diverse conceptions both of the gravity of the c i v i l liberties issue involved, and of the desirability of cooperating with the Communists. Captain Elmore Philpott, president of the Ontario section of the C.C.F.? wrote to Agnes Macphail in regard to participating in the "united front:" I could not for a moment remain in an organization which tolerated such a tie-up^not so much because i t would be political suicide for people like your-self and myself, but because I am more and more coming to the point of realization that I am just g 3 as much opposed to communism as I am to capitalism. Similarly, to J. S. Woodsworth, he wrote; . . .1 may say that the whole situation is extremely tense. . . . Goldstick /si member of the Labor Conference/ suggested that he didn't care whether or not Smith had committed any crime. . .that he would uphold him or any other working class representative right or wrong. Understanding the moral background of the Canadian people as you do, you will appreciate the reaction of the farmers and some of the rest of us to this attitude. 24 62 The Labor Conference, however, was not prepared to yield on the issue, and its spokesmen announced that i t would defy the Provincial Council's orders. It issued a statement to a l l members of the Labor Conference asser-ting: . . . Free speech was the issue. . .and Labor could not sidestep this issue. . . . Members of the Labor Conference, we ask you to stand fast! 25 Indeed, when Thomas Cruden moved to expel the Communists from the Socialist Party of Canada, an affiliate of the Labor Conference, he was removed from 26 the Presidency. So too, elements of the Club Section in Toronto saw the principles involved in the same manner as the Labor Conference. Mrs. Elizabeth Morton of the Labor Conference commented: . . . Even the Toronto C.C.F. clubs were aroused to the point of demanding a protest-meeting. . . . Despite the veto the Toronto and District Association of C.C.F. Clubs again voted to hold a protest meeting regardless of the approval or disapproval of the Provincial Council. This is here recorded to indicate that large sections of the Club movement were in agreement with labor's attitude on' this matter. 27 The majority of the 80 members of the St. Paul's C.C.F. Club of Toronto refused to obey the Provincial Council when ordered to expel Wilfrid Jones for speaking on the "united front" platform. When D. M. LeBourdais, president of the Club section,visited the Club, he found i t "packed 28 against him." In fact, four clubs in Toronto, the Danforth, Woodsworth, 29 Woodbine and St. Paul's, were suspended over their support of Smith. Clearly, a significant sector of the C.C.F. membership interpreted the 30 issue of " c i v i l liberties" as the supreme question at stake. D. M. LeBourdais, however, illustrated where the real dilemma of the problem lay: At the provincial Council, . . .though there was a certain sympathy, the Council held the C.C.F. could not take any part in protest movements or public discussions. It was our course to keep clear of the Communists. 31 63 The final outcome of the controversy that had reached a stalemate among the three sections of the party in Ontario, was the decision by Woodsworth and the National Council to suspend the Ontario Provincial Council, and to 32 undertake a complete reorganization of the party in Ontario. The Smith t r i a l , as an issue of c i v i l liberties, thus constituted the immediate cause for the disruption of the C.C.F. party, and ended its hopes for any degree of success in the coming provincial election, June, 1934. "Civil liberties" were serving again as a disruptive force in which no .absolute answer was possible. In fact, the whole issue was tending to dissipate itself more in internal controversies over the correct stand to be taken than in external confrontations. Again, the attitudes adopted and the actions taken on a specific issue tended to reflect one*s evaluation of the existing social order and the threats that confronted i t . If I had my way,—he (Bennett) would be wrapped up in a fine shroud from Section 98. 33 (Rev. S. B. East, Queen*s Park, July 6, 1935) The violent clash in Regina between the R.G.M.P. and the Relief Camp Strikers on Dominion Day, 1935, was the bloody result of the Bennett 34 government's method of providing work for single unemployed men. As to the responsibility for the outbreak of the violence in which one policeman was killed and several men injured^ there were two views—one placing the onus of the guilt upon the extremism of a small communistic element, leading the Relief Camp Union and making unreasonable demands, the other attributing responsibility to the precipitate action of the revolution-conscious Bennett government despite the declared wishes of 64 T. C. Davis, the Attorney-General of Saskatchewan. Though i t is impossible 35 to assess the guilt for the immediate outbreak of violence in Regina, one fact was irrefutable: The Bennett government was employing unflinching measures in dealing with the situation. The high-handed manner in which 36 37 Bennett received the Relief Strikers delegation in Ottawa, the rumor of an order-in-council making i t a statutory offence for anyone to feed strikers so as to enable them to continue the March to Ottawa, and the laying of charges against the leaders of the Relief Camp Union under Section 98 of the Criminal Code, did nothing to mitigate that view. The Bennett policy raised again the basic questions of liberty and authority. The tradition of British justice had implied the right to lay one's grievances before the highest authority of the land free from molestation. On the other hand, i f the March to Ottawa was really a plot, a comspiracy on the part of a few violent men, was i t not the duty of lawfully constituted authority to protect society? The problem , however, was further complicated by the natural reactions of sympathy for a vast bulk of deluded and depression-weary relief-camp workers. Within Toronto, the reaction to the entire episode was to be intensified by the furtive arrest within the city on July 6—under Section. 98—of Matt Shaw, a young member of the Relief Camp Union who had come to Toronto to take part in the protest there, but who had not even been present in Regina when the 38 violence erupted. The pattern of reaction in Toronto followed lines similar to those already observed in the preceding issue of the t r i a l of A. E. Smith, with one significant exception. The Globe was in accord with Bennett in regarding the outbreak of violence in Regina as an imminent threat against existing institutions, though that view was mitigated somewhat by a concern for the real needs of 65 the Relief Camp workers. The Telegram, in an editorial four days before the riot, had called for precisely the policy upon which the Bennett government had seized.0 A threat against constituted government can only be repelled with the use of whatever means are necessary. . . . A l l political parties will join in resisting any attempt to introduce mob rulec or Soviet rule into this country. . . . The country looks to Mr. Bennett to meet the situation in such a way as to ensure the maintenance of peace, order, and good government. 40 The Communist Party and the C.L.D.L. again sounded their appeal for the formation of a ••united front1' against the "imminent fascist onslaught": Time has come for the people of Canada to cal l a halt! If Bennett is allowed to carry on his line much further, the last democratic rights wi l l be taken away and a full-fledged fascist dictatorship in Canada will be our lot! . . . It is not for revolution that we say the time has come. . . . It is for common defence against a band of unscrupulous rulers whose hands already drop blood and who want to take the last of human rights away from us. 41 Labour organization in Toronto illustrated its characteristic tendency to divide on the problem. The Toronto District Labor Council announced its intention to protest the Bennett government's action and to endorse the strikers' claims, yet refused to participate in the mass rally at Maple Leaf Gardens of July 6 . The resolution asserted that having in mind the dangers that can be created i f this policy of repression is to be carried into effect, for a l l progressive movements in Canada. . .it is the opinion of the executive that every trade union in this city must immediately make representations to the government opposing such a policy. 42 The Labor Leader, however, interpreted the situation in the following manner: . . . Already we have witnessed riot and bloodshed. . . . It is rather pathetic that certain parlor pinks seem to be always on hand to defend the actions of these 'reds' 66 when they run foul of the law. . . . A just but firm hand is needed to handle this situation. 4 3 Of most interest and significance, however, is the reaction of the C.C.F.t The Ontario Provincial Council sanctioned vigorous protest action against the Bennett government's activity. As the Star described i t , C.C.F. speakers took to soap-boxes urging a coast-to-coast fight against any more "whittling down" of the peoples* rights. 4 4 Graham Spry, president of the Provincial Council, asserted that the C.C.F. members intended to fight Section 9 8 and would go to j a i l i f necessary to have that law removed from the statute books J* If we want constitutional changes we must fight against measures which prevent democratic action and that i3 the use to which Section 9 8 is put. 4 5 Moreover, the Provincial Council recommended the setting-up of a non-partisan Citizen's Committee in which the C.C.F. would be represented. The Committee, which included representatives from seventeen organiza-4 6 tions, issued the following statement: The Toronto Citizen's Committee. . .considers that the arrest on orders from Regina (of Matt Shaw) raises the whole question of the sharpening struggle for the defence of c i v i l rights and liberties, and specifically by the struggle against Section 98 of the Criminal Code . . . . The mass meeting for Thursday is but the opening of a determined drive for our objectives, the release of Shaw and of a l l who are held as a result of their part in the trek to Ottawa. 4 7 The significant difference in the kind of reaction from that of the A. E. Smith t r i a l was revealed in the presence of Graham Spry and representatives of the C.C.F. regional councils on a united platform with members of the Communist Party, the Young Communist League and the 4 8 C.L.D.L. Clearly., the C.C.F. was attempting to avoid the confusion engendered by the c i v i l liberties issue of the previous year. As Graham Spry wrote to Angus Maclnnis only a few days before the outbreak of violence: I am much concerned. . .with, the direction affairs are taking under the impetus given by the relief camp strikers march. . . . I hope, whatever the risks to the C.C.F., that we can get fully behind the march. To be neutral, i t seems to me, would be a disaster; in an issue like this, i t seems to me there is no neutrality; either we back the marchers or we are forced into the position of appearing to back Mr. Bennett and his minions. 49 However, by July 11, that "united front" had already begun to break down in mutual recriminations on the public platform. The speakers, having agreed to confine themselves to the discussion of the abolition of Section 98 and the arrest of the Regina strikers and of Matt Shaw in particular, 50 quickly found themselves quarrelling over matters of theory, and the whole protest quickly lost its momentum. One further important factor in this outcome was the decision to continue "the march on Ottawa" from Toronto, under the leadership of the Ontario Workers' Federation.. The request for the repeal of Section 98 was dropped from their Manifesto and replaced by specific economic demands like wages of f i f t y cents per hour, work on the basis of a five-day week, and workers' unemployment insurance. James Simpson, the C.C.F. mayor of Toronto, refused to allow the Trekkers to hold a tag day to collect funds in the city without the authorization of the Welfare Department, and Premier Hepburn, having supported the strikers against the invocation of Section 98, attempted to discourage the continuance of the Trek by offering the men farm jobs and free transportation to their 51 homes. Again, the difficulties of taking a clear and forthright stand on an issue involving the balance of liberty and authority had been revealed. i " * * * * * * * * * * * 68 An examination of four specific issues in which the fundamental problem of individual rights and liberties was involved—the policy of the Board of Police Commissioners, 1928-1933, Section 98 of the Criminal Code and the conviction of the Communists, 1931, the sedition t r i a l of A. E. Smith, 1934, the Regina Riot, 1935—has revealed that the reaction in Toronto was both diverse and complex. It may be said that those groups taking a vigorous stand against the invasion of rights were clearly in a minority. The assumption had been that Canada, as a British country, revered the British traditions of individual freedom and c i v i l liberties. Indeed, the analysis has illustrated that during the thirties in Toronto, no one—save a minute minority—denied a supreme regard for "British c i v i l liberty." The problem arose when the attempt was made to translate that regard for c i v i l liberties into concrete policy. Indeed, the whole gamut of reactions that have been noted—the vigorous strong-armed stand by the Globe and Telegram on virtually every issue, the ceaseless campaign against Draper and Coatsworth conducted by the Star, the ambivalent and vacillating policy most notable in labor organization and the C.C^F. Party—all were justified in the name of a regard for British tradition. Hence, the issue of c i v i l liberty never really arose as a "balck-and-white" choice for society as a whole. A significant lack of consensus existed as to the background against which specific issues could be examined. Indeed, even individual organizations tended to disagree as to precisely what constituted an invasion of individual liberties, and as to the manner in which the protest against such invasions should be conducted. Ultimately, the decision about the "limits" of basic freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom, of association, freedom of assembly,—depended not so much upon legal definitions as upon one's interpretation of the world order, of the degree of imminence of threats to existing institutions and values, of the desirability of change within those institutions and values, and of the methods to be used to accomplish such ends.. The foregoing examination of specific issues has revealed a fundamental divergence of opinion as to the answers to these questions during the depression in Toronto. Thus^an attempt may be made to analyse the most important assumptions that lay at the base of the diversity of opinion over c i v i l liberties. 70 CHAPTER VII THE COMMUNIST MENACE By the vigilance and Generalship of General Draper," Toronto was saved once more from a Bolshevist uprising • . . The ancient rights of citizens were trampled underfoot, but to the hysterical imagination of Judge Coatsworth and Chief Draper, Toronto was saved. "The Observer," (Star, May 3 , 1933) By the end of the 1920's, Soviet Russia was in the midst of a social, political and economic experiment that had world-wide implications."'" in 1928, under the firm grasp of Stalin, Russia had embarked upon its fir s t Five Year Plan, a program of planned, state-controlled enterprise in agriculture and industry, designed to revolutionize Russia's position in 2 the economic world. The import of the Communist experiment in Russia for the rest of the world consisted not merely in the potential threat of a viable alternative, within a single country, to the system of capitalistic enterprise, but in its explicit assertion that Ciommunism, as a system of government and economic theory, would gain inevitable and universal triumph over capitalism, thus spelling the doom of the political, economic, and 3 social structure of the existing capitalist countries. The triumph, how-ever, was not to be left to the "inevitable forces of destiny," but was to be prepared for through the activities, in a l l capitalist countries, of small Communist parties, voicing the doctrines of Marx and Lenin, and looking 4 to Moscow for guidance and direction. Hence, i t is in relation to the public awareness of this all-encompassing Russian experiment that the problem of liberty and authority in Toronto of the 30's must be examined, for the varying response to government and municipal policy that has been - - 7 1 discussed in four specific- issues reflected diverse assumptions as to the character of the Russian system and its implicit results for Canada. The Star was fascinated by the novel character of the events taking place in Russia, and made serious efforts to discover the actual results of a system of government and economy based on the principles of cooperation 5 6 and planning. Charles H. .'Heustis, a frequent contributor to the Star. characterized his interest in the experiment in the following terms: . . . It is to be remembered. . .that the Soviet regime does seek to implement. . .a profoundly spiritual idea, namely, "From every one according to his ability; to every one according to his need." . . . /InJ Russia today we see the reassertion. . .of,the very principle of Democracy, "government of the people, by the people, for the people,1? which obtains in no democracy in the world at present with the possible exception of New Zealand. This is why I watch the Russian experiment with interest and considerable sympathy. 7 For the Star and its writers, the view that the Soviet Union and its system of government posed a direct and imminent threat to the existing structure of Canadian society and its British tradition of parliamentary institutions was scarcely a realistic one. In fact, the Star argued that i f the strong-armed methods of Draper were abandoned, the Communists would not even gain an audience in Toronto. They represented only a minute part of the population and were employing reasoning which the Star conceived of as alien to the Canadian tradition: The Reds. . .in Toronto are few in number and small in consequence. . . . By calling out almost the entire police force. . .to prevent Tim Buck from making a speech in Queen's Park—although he has been trying for twenty years to .get people to listen to the speeches he was makingu-the impression was created in Moscow, London, Paris, Berlin. . .and a l l points east of Toronto that Toronto was seething with Communism. . . . In other days two or three police could have taken care of the Communists in Toronto. . • . I t was not the Communists who drew crowds to the parks; i t was the police. S A similar view underlay the attitude of the New Outlook. At the suggestion that the majority of the university students in Toronto were Gbmraunists, i t commented^  This idea that students anywhere and especially Canadian students are wild-eyed revolutionists is just pure nonsense, born in some crazy man's brain. 9 Those papers and organizations that viewed police policy as an invasion of the liberties of the individual thus tended to formulate a conception of "Canadianism" that reflected confidence in a deep-rooted regard for existing British institutions among the Canadian people, and they scoffed at the suggestion that a minute band of revolutionaries could redirect Canadian traditions along alien lines. Frequently, however, the emphasis upon "Canadianism" tended to emerge as anti-Americanism, for the police methods of Draper reflected more of the findings of the American Wickersham Report"^ than the British idea that "police and law courts are as much the protectors of the innocent as pursuers of the guilty.""^ The opinions expressed by such papers as the Globe, the Telegram, the Financial Post—those favoring an unflinching policy on the side of authority—revealed a different estimation of the threat of Communism in Canada. Their attitude reflected l i t t l e confidence in the strength and viability of the Canadian tradition. The Globe commented: It is doubtful that i t is known how many Reds are in Toronto or any other city outside of Russia. . . . The strength*of the Communist Party in England is now given by Moscow as 3,200, yet there are almost this number of supporters for a communist candidate in Toronto. Who knows how many Reds there were "by another name? 12 The Mail and Empire took a similar view: . . . In the vast capital of the U. K. there are many things to interest the crowd in every quarter. There the Bolshevist agitators are merely queer folk, whose blatherskite talk has no effect. . . . Here where the - 73 Communists are carrying on schools for the education of l i t t l e children in upsetting and blasphemous doctrines, the granting to them of the freedom of any park. . .wherein to shout their Red rebellion against law and order would be highly culpable. . . . 12 Similarly, such papers placed emphasis upon the spectre of atheism ruling Christian families and destroying Christian churches. The Globe asserted: The matter of 'free speech1. . .is but a 'red herring1 across the t r a i l . Why is the cause of a group of revolutionary agitators to be preferred to the welfare of a loyal Christian nation?. . . This tender-hearted bosh about the Bolsheviki ought to be stamped out once and for a l l by an indignant citizenship. It is not British-Canadian or Christian. 14 The Attorney-General of Ontario, the Honourable W. H. Price, himself made a speech urging the churches to "unite to stem the tide of atheism that threatens the country through the acitivites of men like Gardiner, Bland .,15 and J. S. Woodsworth. Evidently for these papers and like-minded people a particular concept of Christianity was an inherent part of the Canadian identity, and was an effective weapon in justifying the use of unflinching policies. The memory of the Winnipeg General Strike, 1919, played a significant role in the creation of an over-riding fear of Communism and the Soviet 16 onslaught. An examination of the Winnipeg strike by D. C. Masters has revealed that the threat of a Communist revolution in Winnipeg in 1919 was hardly a real one; nevertheless, the fear that i t engendered had lasting effects on political thinking in Canada. At the height of the controversy over the Fellowship of Reconciliation in 1931, the Telegram, having reprinted the section dealing with the Winnipeg General Strike in the Canadian Annual Review of 1919, commented: Unquestionably the incidents of the Winnipeg strike were in Judge Morson's mind when he asked Rev. Dr. Bland i f he was the Bland who had been in Winnipeg and i f he was a Communist or approved of Communism. The latter questions were not completely answered by Dr. Bland's indignant, "Me, 74 a man of Christian ancestry, me a Communist I I-am a Christian, a believer in democracy. I am saturated with the ideals of democracy." Nor did Dr. Bland meet the issue directly when to Mayor Stewart's question: "Is Communism as you know i t within the Code?" he answered, "I don't know i t at a l l . " 17 18 A Toronto associate of Canon H. J. Cody wrote to him in a similar vein: Was not Salem Bland one of the ring leaders in the Winnipeg strike that nearly succeeded in causing bloodshed a few years ago. . . ".. Some good men have been misled by others not so good who place the good ones in front as the type that make up the Fellowship. Free speech of the right sort is no more menaced in Toronto than is free preaching. 19 When J. S. Woodsworth introduced an amendment for the repeal of Section 98 in the House of Commons, the Telegram commented: . . .As a former leader in the movement to establish Soviet rule in the Manitoba metropolis, Mr. Woodsworth felt the desirability of doing away with Section 98 under which eight Toronto Communists have recently transferred their activities to Kingston for a time. A brand of what may be termed "Canadian nativism" may be observed in the attitude adopted towards Communism in many quarters. The New Outlook took note of i t : . . . A specially warm and enthusiastic type of patriotism is just now flinging around the word 'Bed' with quite a free and generous hand. Only recently we have had quite a s i l l y spectacle of those who were insisting that a certain freedom of speech and action were good. . .being dubbed Communists and censured as the enemies of law and order by those claiming special loyalty and unusual concern for the people's good. 21 In the Globe, one finds the clearest expression of this phenomenon: Are (the people) to submit to a policy which will let loose a stench of Soviet propaganda. . . . Have they not a right to expect the authorities to protect them from organized foreign-born and foreign-pointed intrigue . . . . Patriotic Christian Canadians cannot possibly 22 abandon the traditions on which this country was founded. . . . . . . True British tradition is not weak-kneed sub-servience to the enemies within the gates. . . . In this country, however, the danger of Red 'free speech' is not 75 in its subversive effect on the intelligent British-born or French Canadians but on the tens of thousands of foreign-born who know nothing of British tradition and i t is among them that the Reds are doing their deadly work. . . . 23 Similarly the reply of R. B. Bennett to the Amalgamated Carpenters Union of Toronto's petition for the repeal of Section 98 illustrates the propensity to define "radicalism" in foreign, un-Canadian terms: . . . I have received telegram messages demanding that Section 98 be repealed. . . .signed by Czech-Slovak Associations, Russian Associations, and Jugo-Slav groups . . . . Nothing more clearly indicates the Communistic background of the agitation than the method taken to secure the repeal. . . . The law does not in any way interfere with free speech. . . .but on the contrary endeavors to prevent associations being organized which , have for their purpose the destruction by any means of our existing civilization. 24 Moreover, the argument employed was not merely a direct appeal to "Britishness," but rather an attempt to define a particular "Canadianism," a reflection of what were regarded as peculiar Canadian conditions. Hence, in answer to the contention that the British tradition of Hyde Park should be imitated in Canada, the Globe responded: Nor is the cry for toleration in the name of Hyde Park and British justice any more to the point. . . . /they/ overlook one important difference between communism in England and Canada. Great Britain has the background of centuries of tradition as a stabilizing influence whenever the air becomes blue with Hyde Park orators. Canada has no such safety valve. The Communists here work chiefly among foreigners who know nothing about British tradition or Canadian patriotism and whose only background is one of unsatisfied grievances. Have we no moral or legal obligation to save these people from inoculation with the Soviet virus. 25 The Star, however, fought a vigourous rearguard action against the constant use of the "foreign danger" to justify unflinching policies. In an editorial, i t pointed out that of the Canadian population only 10.82 per cent were foreign-born. Almost 78 per cent of the people living in Canada 26 were Canadian-born. The lesson the Star drew from these statistics was 7 6 that the vast majority of the people of Canada were "subject to Canadian influences in their upbringing and /were/ surely Canadian in every sense 27 of the word." It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that among significant groups in Toronto the "Red bogey" was conjured up effectively to provide 28 ample justification for a firm attitude to the local Communists. That the motives for the attitude toward Russia and Communism were not 29 always purely ideological, however, was implied by Rev. Ernest Thomas in the New Out look t . . . The menace of Russia is not debated, but the nature of the menace is not so clear. . . . One may well wonder whether the alarm is. felt because of i t s materialist philosophy or its challenge to our industrial system. . . . 30 Indeed, the fact that attitudes to Communism were not solely deter-mined by ideological factors was to become clearer with the intensification of the Depression in 1931, and the continuation of the Russian policy of "dumping" vast quantities of cheap goods—particularly wheat and coal— 31 on the world markets. The results of that policy were interpreted to be particularly severe for Canada, as one of the chief exporters of western wheat and maritime coal. Attitudes toward Russia and the Communist experiment tended to be conditioned by views of the effects of Russia's economic policy on Canada. An examination of the editorial policy of those papers most afflicted by the Communist bogey—particularly the Globe and the Mail and Empire—reveals that the fear of Russia and Communism resulted not merely from Russian ideology, but from a calculation of the drastic economic effects from which Canada would suffer should the Russian policy succeed. The Mail and Empire commented: 77 In Russia. . . .this vast volume of cheap slave labor is enabling the Soviet administration to ruin the world's markets for most of the nations included in the general term Christendom. Unfortunately industrial and financial corporations in . . .Canada. . .are assisting in financing this attack upon the welfare of their own nation, (i.e. through trade with Russia). . .»In the face of such a menace i t is surely the obvious duty: of everyone in Canada. . .to avoid offering comfort and assistance to a powerful enemy and to put down every fully ascertained effort towards revolution by the paid agents of the Soviet. 32 Hence, the decision of the Bennett Government to place an embargo on 33 Russian goods in February, 1931, together with its determination that Britian should take action at the Imperial Economic Conference of July, 1932, to restrict the importation of Soviet goods were applauded by the Globe and Mail and Empire, because they were seen, ideologically, as forthright steps in checking the success of the Five Year Plan; perhaps even more important, they were interpreted as a boon to the Canadian trading position^and, hence, a panacea for the existing Canadian depres-sion. Thus, part of the Russian bogey had a firm foundation in an 35 interpretation of Canadian economic and material self-interest. The conception of Communism that has been described reinforced the justification for the use of autocratic methods to save democracy, for i t was no longer a problem of the rights and liberties of the individual, but of the duties and obligations on the part of authority to preserve Canadian institutions. It was but a short intellectual leap, however, from viewing the local Communists as part of an international plot to upset the universe, to imputing Communism to any individuals<or organizations that seemed to sympathize with the Communists, even i f only on the grounds of "British free speech." In two editorials, the Globe illustrated how smoothly that transition might be effected: 78 . . .there are but two sides to the free speech controversy—. . . « If they are opposed to the attitude of the Commission and the Chief Constable, how can they be opposed to the attitude of the Communists? 36 This i s the issue clear and definite—whether the Communists or anti-Communists are supreme; whether the Communists are to suppress the police or the police the Communists. . . . On this issue the course of law-abiding and loyal citizens is plain. It is they who are represented by the police—not' murderers, thieves, revolutionists and incendiafists. 37 This easy transition thus dictated the limitations against which a solid front could be formed against the invasion of individual and group rights on the part of the government. Indeed, when the Star attacked Draper and Coatsworth for their obscurantist policy on the issue of "free speech," the Telegram simply referred to i t as the "Toronto Daily Pravda" and 38 "Joe Stalin's local mouthpiece." Similarly, an organization like the Fellowship of Reconciliation tended to divide rather than solidify public opinion, when Coatsworth could publicly assert of its proposed open forum in 1931: It is quite evident that i t is a communist meeting under a very thin disguise. I must decline therefore to be present. 39 The "Red scare" was frequently responsible for the vacillation of the C.C.F. position on the issue of c i v i l liberties. James Simpson, a member of the Toronto Board of Control and of the C.C.F. provincial executive, expressed the desideratum of party policy in the following manner: 'We; .are determined that we are not going to have any truck or trade with the Communists. . . . On the other hand we are not going to submit to any interference , 0 with Magna Carta rights under the British constitution. In practice, however, the C.C.F.»s policy was difficult to achieve. The C.C.F. ^espousal of a fairly ,doctrinnaire brand of socialism tended to 79 lead to an easy though naive identification of its cause with that of the Communists. The party's frequent demands on the public platform for the "complete eradication of the capitalist system" did l i t t l e to 41 diminish this confusion. One Toronto man wrote to R. B. Bennett asser-ting that D. M. LeBourdais, president of the Ontario section of the 42 C.C.F. Clubs, was a "rabid Marxian Communist." Indeed, the C.C.F. was constantly defending itself against the epithets "atheistic, 43 communistic and Bolshevistic." The danger was'that in taking too firm a line on a matter such as "freedom of speech," the C.C.F. would call down upon its head the wrath of the "red-baiters." That this was the chief issue in its decision on the stand to be taken on the question involving liberty and authority in the Relief Camp Trek is lucidly revealed in a letter from Graham Spry of Toronto to Angus Maclnnis: The problem i s , how can we support the march and yet keep ourselves free from the public disadvantages arising from association with Communists?. . .how to keep free from the Communist taint or be manoeuvred into a position in which the Communists can injure us, I do not know. . . . . . .1 am going to suggest (to the Provincial Executive) that we set up a committee of citizens—non-political— with as many ministers, professors, and other genteel people as well as thorough going trade union and labor people as we can secure. 44 Similarly, upon occasion, the Liberal party suffered from the same dilemma as the C.C.F.. Sir William Mulock, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and a l i f e long Liberal and former member of parliament, wrote to Mackenzie King in 1931: The press of this morning gives a report of the meeting of certain communists with Bennett and with you. . . . Be careful and not make a mistake. Do not t r i f l e or in uncertain words deal with the question. An uncertain attitude will be construed as favoring the communist 80 and he that is not with us is against us. It is the communist against right. . . .The public interest demands firmness on the part of public men in not encouraging or appearing to encourage communism. It i s becoming dangerous and will be a political question at the polls when an appeal is made to the country. Therefore, my strong advice to you is to adopt a firm stand against i t , and that cannot be misunder-stood by the electors. 45 King, however, replied: . . .1 was careful in what I said not to countenance anything in the nature of an extreme proposal. . .1 was equally careful, however, not to make i t possible for any of the delegation to say that they did not receive so much as a hearing from either the Conservative or Liberal party and that the only hearing they had found i t possible to receive was from Labor and Progressive members of the House of Commons upon whom they also waited, and some of whom are only too ready to have. . . i t appear that they alone are champions of the cause of labor quite irrespective of the nature of i t s demands. . . . . While seeking to avoid even the appearance of sympathy with any of those who are promoting communist views, equal care, i t seems to me, has to be taken to have the unemployed realize that opposition to Communism does not mean antagonism to Labor itself, which, of course, i s the impression which the leaders of the communist movement would like to create. 46 In retrospect, i t may be observed that the extreme fear of Communism in Toronto that was prevalent in the period under examination was unfounded. Numerous prognostications may be found in the papers of the period that, on account of prevailing economic and social conditions and government reaction to them, the masses were becoming more radical. Raymond Booth of Toronto wrote to J. S. Woodsworth: There is a smouldering resentment in the city that does not regard physical restraint as a virtue i f things can be accomplished otherwise. This body of opinion may be quieted during the summer when men can sleep out of doors and forage a l i t t l e for food. But frankly I am afraid for next winter. . . .1 think we are prepared to say that i f bloodshed comes the blame may be safely laid at the door of the Police Commission and of the Chief Constable. 47 81 In fact, i f response to the Communist appeal is taken as the criterion of radicalism, the masses did not become more radical. In the municipal and federal elections, the Communist party candidates gained only an 48 insignificant number of votes. Indeed, the Communist Party of Canada i tself admitted that i t was finding l i t t l e response to its radical appeals: Our membership in Toronto which was around 500 at one time, is now down to less than 200, and this , Q condition is reflected in the district generally. For Toronto of the 30*s, however, the attitude adopted toward Communism and i ts implications for Canada, however misguided, underlay the position taken on issues involving the problem of liberty and authority. 82 CHAPTER VIII THE DEPRESSION PHENOMENON . . .Heretics are never burnt by people who are sure but by people who in their inmost soul are horribly insecure. "The Observer," (Star. December 10, 1931/ The statistical, tangible effects of the collapse of the economic system in 1929 upon Toronto have been briefly indicated.^ The preceding examination of specific issues involving liberty and authority in Toronto has illustrated that economic dislocation produced a considerable effect upon the prevailing attitudes towards the liberty of the individual and the authority of the state. To be sure, the Depression was not directly responsible for the initiation of the policy that Draper and the Board of Police Commissioners sought to implement. Indeed, that policy had been 2 in existence long before the collapse of October, 1929. The Depression, however, had a significant impact on attitudes toward the issues involved in such a policy. Among a l l groups in Canada, the Depression produced a lurid sense of an existing world order crumbling about them, and a disillusionment with the efficacy of the democratic system as i t existed at present. Clearly, the institutions and values accepted with overflowing confidence in the 20*s had not lived up to expectations. The editor of the New Outlook accepted that disillusionment as axiomatic: Democracy is on trial—there is not any doubt of that. We have a growing volume of misgiving and more positive conviction in many other countries as to whether the present order of things is to be thought of as final or not. . . . 3 83 It must be observed from the preceding examination of c i v i l liberties, however, that such economic dislocation, and the disillusionment resulting from i t , engendered diverse ways of interpreting the needs and capabilities of society, and hence the respective limits of liberty and authority. For many in Toronto i n the 30*s, the course dictated by the " t r i a l of democracy" was to hold tenaciously to the remnants of existing i n s t i -tutions and values—economic, poli t ical , social—however imperfect they had proven to be, in the persistent belief that stability would return. Such a view in economic terms is clearly evident in the Treasurer's Report for the city of Toronto in 1931: The Gity of Toronto i s weathering the present World-wide crisis with credit to i ts citizenry. . . . The high standard of credit which the City has always enjoyed i s unimpaired. . . . Nevertheless the storm signals "are s t i l l f lying. ..and constant vigilance and courage should not be relaxed. A l l credit is due to the present administration for. . .their consistent policy of drastic retrenchment of current expenditures.^ In i ts extreme forms, that attitude reflected "a psychology of fear or insecurity"—a desire to grasp at the "known" in the midst of a changing world of unpredictables. In an editorial, September 25, 1933, the Globe captured the spirit of that policy dictated by fear and disillusion-ment: In these times of anxiety and unrest, times of temptation to the hard pressed, times calculated to embolden the wrong-doer, times of opportunity to the hardened criminal, i t should be the duty of every citizen steadfastly to stand behind constituted authority in the. . .proper enforcement of the law. It was an easy transition from this base of fear and insecurity in a changing world to the deduction of the need for strong and unflinching measures to^preserve the substance of existing institutions. The needs of preservation took precedence over the question of rights?and implied an outright acceptance of the necessity of what Bennett, in a speech 84 #5 i n Toronto, described as "the i r o n heel of ruthlessness. The-Telegram i l l u s t r a t e d t h i s manner o f t h i n k i n g when i t commented upon the a p p l i c a -t i o n , i n the House of Commons, of the epithet of "Mussolini"to Bennett: It rings more l i k e a compliment i n a day when the country looks f o r strong government and approves the courage which w i l l put an end t o the interminable twaddle which otherwise estimable f o l k are prepared to devote to the defence o f those whose only purpose i n l i f e i s t o s t i r up unrest and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . . . . The present t r y i n g period. . . i s admirably su i t e d f o r the purposes of revolution-preaching men. . . . They cannot be permitted t o wreck the machinery o f state on the pretence that they are e f f e c t i n g r e p a i r s . 6 A q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t r e a c t i o n t o the Depression may be observed i n the p o s i t i o n of the Star, the Canadian Forum, the C.C.F., and elements o f the United Church, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Board o f Evangelism and S o c i a l S e r v i c e , i n e f f e c t , i n those sections of the c i t y which looked on the P o l i c e Commission's and Bennett's p o l i c y as invasions o f basic " B r i t i s h l i b e r t i e s . " The assumptions Tinder l y i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e may be observed i n the following comment i n the Canadian Forum: There probably was never a time when more people were questioning the soundness of these foundations upon which our c i v i l i z a t i o n has been b u i l t — e v e r y o n e i s poking about and f i n d i n g patches o f r o t t e n cement. . . — and i f there i s no freedom to d e a l with these fundamental questions i t i s an i n s u l t t o our i n t e l l i g e n c e to t a l k about freedom at a l l . 7 Underlying t h i s a t t i t u d e t o the Depression—and, consequently, the a t t i t u d e t o l i b e r t y and authority—was a s p i r i t of optimism as to the c a p a b i l i t y o f man t o respond sanely to reasoned i n t e l l e c t u a l d i s c u s s i o n , and an open-minded w i l l i n g n e s s to accept gradual, necessary change. The L i b e r a l , Sam Factor, (Toronto Spadina) expressed a s i m i l a r confidence i n the House o f Commons: I f the honourable member would come to Toronto and attend a meeting o f communists. . .and acquaint himself with 85 their numerical and intellectual strength I think he would come back. . .and laugh at the situation rather than be so serious about i t . . . The people in Toronto are too sane and too sensible to countenance revolution g no matter how bad economic and social conditions may be. So also, the Board of Evangelism and Social Service, in its statement on Section 98, indicated the assumptions upon which it based its position on civil liberty! . . . . In times of crisis (it) is the obligation of public men. . .to refrain from public utterances of needless harshness, more especially i f those statements seem to forbid or menace the peaceable and reasoned advocacy of social and economic change. . . . There are only two ways of adjusting existing institutions to new needs—the one is by talking the thing over and the other is by fighting i t out. The unnecessary prevention of the former tends to provoke the latter and the Board regrets that some recent utterances of men in high position. . .have seemed to suggest a serious lack of sympathy with those for whom present suffering is no academic matter. . . . 9 Only out of free discussion and interchange could a realistic solution to the present economic chaos emerge, even i f , as the Board decided, that solution consisted in a drastic reorientation of the present capitalist 10 system. Clearly, the economic dislocation caused by the Depression was creating assumptions against which the relative values of liberty, order, and authority could be evaluated. In examining the diverse attitudes that have been delineated above, the question arises as to how far the attitudes upheld reflected a particular class view within Toronto. Clearly, "the possessing class" had much to lose in a universal upset of the existing capitalist order. 11 To be sure, the majority of what may be loosely termed 'the Establishment" strongly urged holding tenaciously to what remained of the present system in the fear of a far greater debacle. Papers such as the Financial  Post and organizations such as the Toronto Board of Trade advocated a policy that weighted the scales heavily on the side of order and authority, 86 presumably because the class they represented had much to lose i f a drastic reorientation in the economic system should take place. A class interest seems to have been reflected, too, in the kinds of meetings that were prevented in the "free speech" controversy. Judge E. Coatsworth asserted: Street meetings are held only by sufferance. We allow quiet meetings such as the Salvation Army holds on the streets. There is no trouble with them or similar religious meetings, but disorder and fighting must be stopped. 12 Coatsworth was defining policy in terms of disorder, but i t could equally be asserted that meetings such as those of the Salvation Army were acceptable to Judge Coatsworth because i t was unlikely that they would advocate views that called for a change in the existing social and economic order. It must be considered , however, that "a psychology of fear," and thus a greater concern for authority at the expense of liberty, appears to have found considerable response among a l l classes, even among the unemployed. Frequently intellectuals commented upon the apathy with 13 which the unemployed tended to look upon the invasion of rights. A case study of the psychological effects of unemployment conducted during the 1930»s reached the following conclusions: It appears definite that one need not fear "revolt" of the unemployed; perhaps i t would be better had they greater capacity for protest. This is a group of quite thoroughly discouraged and defeated people, frightened and confused, and clutching only to hope for their children i f not for themselves. . . . One's routine vanished with unemployment,—over a l l is developed a protective layer of "not-thinking," of refusal to contemplate one's problems. . .an anaesthetic to deaden one's pains. 14 Hence the reaction of the unemployed tended to be one of support for 15 existing authority. The greatest concern for the rights of the individual in the face of the authority of the state emanated from a 87 sector of the city composed predominantly of "middle-class, Anglo-Saxon Protestants" whose most common occupations were "teaching, law, and welfare work." ^  In fact, i t was of these people that organizations 17 such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation ' and the C.C.F. were composed. Both of those organizations played prominent parts in the "free speech" controversy and the protest against the excessive use of authority such as occurred in the Regina Riot of July, 1935. The problem of economic, political, and social reorientation raised by the Depression created further questions in regard to the means and agency of effecting change. An increasing number of intellectuals, 18 churchmen and professionals voiced the need for the creation of order out of chaos in the existing governmental and economic system. What the situation demanded, in the view of these men, was competent men, possessing adequate specialized knowledge to analyse existing problems and to pose effective solutions to a system that currently victimized innocent men. This emphasis on the need for technical or specialized knowledge was reflected in those organizations and individuals who, with 19 a certain spirit of optimism, applauded reasoned and ordered change and sought the opportunity to voice this need. Indeed, such organizations acknowledged the need for and the place of the intellectual in the existing world crisis. The Star reflected this attitude in its commentary on the Conservative and Liberal Summer Schools of September 1933: The voice of the professor is abroad in the land. It is speaking a wisdom which the state of the country badly needs—not only the country but the world. . . . For too long a time the college professor and the school master have had to keep out of politics. Now they are being dragged in. . .and urged to s p i l l a l l they know for the good of the country. And they are doing i t wonderfully well and i t is attracting keen interest. Back home in their native haunts the ward heelers are wondering i f their world is coming to an end. 20 88 Among those organizations that opposed change and sought in fear to maintain the existing imperfect system—in effect, those who upheld authority at the expense of liberty—one may note a distinct strain of anti-intellectualism that manifested itself in a fear and distrust of the intellectual's attempt to take a stand on political and social 21 issues. Such contempt seemed to reflect but another aspect of fear in the midst of a crumbling and unpredictable world order, yet, i t might further be interpreted in a class context, in that the turn to specialization reflected^in an acute manner^supreme dissatisfaction with the solutions and methods provided by the existing business and governmental elite, and implied a willingness on the part of intellectuals to usurp that position. Sir John Aird, President of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, and a member of the Board of Directors for several corporations, criticized the public letter of the 68 professors, asserting that professors, particu-22 larly those of a state-paid institution, should "stick to their knitting," and refrain from entering a public controversy of which they know nothing. The character of the anti-intellectualism that was prevalent in Toronto was perhaps most clearly revealed by the Mail and Empire in its editorial comment on the American New Deal legislation: The amusing. . .suggestion i s put forward that professors in the New Deal school in the United States desire to exercise the power and authority. . .exercised by the banker, financier and outstanding men of business generally . . . . A number of professors in Canadian universities are obviously playing the same game. In working with the C.C.F. they are trying to capitalize the popular'discontent that has naturally arisen as a result of nearly four years of world-wide economic depression. This course is scarcely a worthy one for so-called educated men. 23 Amidst a world of uncertainties, the need for authority reigned supreme, particularly in the face of untried intellectuals who professed to know the solution to existing problems and who sought the liberty to express 89 them. The Depression had further implications for the problem of liberty and authority, for i t raised to the level of serious and immediate consideration questions about the need for more significant government intervention and control in the economic activities of the nation, and, hence, the respective limits of liberty and authority. The problem of the growth of government intervention—the gradual abandonment of the nineteenth century laissez-faire tradition—was not an issue created solely by the Depression. Indeed, the scope of government activity had widened steadily since the latter half of the nineteenth century in every industrialized country in the form of government boards, commissions pi and investigating committees. The Depression, however, made the question of increasing government intervention an immediate one, not only because of the need to alleviate the existing situation in terms of government relief for the unemployed, but also so as to provide adequate safeguards against the recurrence of the present economic Catastrophe. Those who urged a widening of the power and authority of government in specific areas so as to alleviate the existing distress challenged the individualist assumptions about the respective spheres of interest of governmental bodies, and thus equally raised the issue of the "limits" of liberty and authority in Canada. Indeed, i t could be argued that in the unfamiliar realm of increased government control and intervention, and not in the excessive precaution by the Bennett Government or the Toronto Board of Police Commissioners in the interests of curbing what was thought to be the rowdier elements, lay the real challenge to the liberty of the individual. What^in fact, did the term "liberty" imply? Was not the Russian police state the 90 clearest indication of the road which a government devoted to planning and control, inevitably followed? Hence, the C.C.F.»s espousal of the cause of economic planning and increased government intervention through socialistic measures, and its concern for " c i v i l liberties" were viewed by many as a contradiction in terms. Earl Lawson, Conservative member for West York, revealed this reasoning in the House of Commons in his reply to J. S. Woodsworth*s resolution for the establishment of a "Cooperative Commonwealth" in Canada: Shall this democracy in the future be permitted to express its w i l l by constitutional method through the voice of the people or shall the people of this country be. . .controlled by a state financial system. . Shall we lose our individualism and be controlled in almost every action. . . . I think I am justified in coming to the conclusion that the Cooperative Common-wealth is communism; communism without bloody revolution, i f you wi l l . . . . IJxiJ its essence I say that the cooperative commonwealth i s communism and communism i s the cooperative commonwealth. 25 The example of two public speeches by Sir William Mulock, Chief Justice of Ontario and Chancellor of the University of Toronto, and the response created by them, illustrates most clearly the assumptions prevalent in Depression thinking and the dilemma the Depression created for the problem of liberty. On February 4, 1931, at the annual meeting of the Livestock Breeders Association in Toronto, Mulock called for the "iron heel of ruthlessness" against the Communists: . . .The issue is one of paramount importance and now is the time for a united Canada to stamp out the treasonable and insidious virus with which wicked men would inoculate the Canadian body politic. 26 In January, 1934, in an address before the Canadian Bar Association in Toronto, he called attention to the invasion of "British liberties," not in terms of the use of methods such as those of the Board of Police 91 Commissioners, but in terms of excessive government intervention through the use of government boards and commissions: I desire to bring to your attention a subject of the greatest importance, one which concerns the liberties, the rights, the happiness of every citizen in Canada and the welfare of Canada itself. . . . I refer to the ever increasing practice of the Parliament of Canada. . . of depriving people of the protection of the law courts by vesting in autocratic bodies the power to arbitrarily deal with matters affecting our liberties and other rights without the intervention of the courts. . . . Compare the method /Tn the courts/ with t r i a l by some arbitrary tribunal such as a commission. . . . For long years, legislators have encroached upon many of the peoples* most sacred rights, deprived them of the protection of the courts of justice and conferred upon commissions; public officers and other irresponsible bodies the power of arbitrarily determining the peoples* rights. . . . Is that the position to which anyone with British blood in his veins should quietly submit? 27 The Mail and Empire, together with the Globe. heartily endorsed Mulock*s opinion on "British liberties." The Globe commented: The stately. . .Ghief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario has made many notable speeches. . .but none is more likely to prove more impressive than his address of last evening. . . . Sir William did not absolve any political party for responsibility for this encroaching evil. . . . If many hundreds of Boards and officers in Canada are exercising arbitrary powers over the liberty and property of citizens, there is call for a vigorous crusade to clean up the industry. Is i t our big "Canadian" racket? 28 Similarly, the leader of the Liberal party was. in accord with Mulock*s view, and he wrote to congratulate him on his speech: . . . I do not think that you have ever delivered anything finer, more needed, or appealing. 29 . . . On Monday I intend to put on Hansard a great part of what you said as to legislative bodies forsaking the rule of law in much of their legislation and depriving citizens of the protection which the courts should afford their property and their liberty. 30 Hence, for many in Toronto, the prospect of increased government inter-vention was a graver danger to liberty in the relationship of liberty and 92 authority than such issues as the free speech controversy, Section 98 31 of the Criminal Code, or the sedition t r i a l of A. E. Smith. It would appear, however, that Mulock and those who applauded both of the attitudes he presented in his addresses were not entirely consistent in their viewpoints. The Board of Police Commissioners was an appointed commission, an administrative and not a legislative body; yet Mulock and his supporters applauded i t even when i t undertook to make de facto legislation on matters such as the holding of public meetingst-in fact, when i t acted precisely in the manner that Mulock was condemning as an 32 invasion of the rights of the courts. The Star took note of this inconsistency in Mulock*s definition of liberty and authority: We do not presume to specify any of the commissions or bodies of any kind which Sir William had in mind . . . . But the Star has in mind instances in plenty which i t could cite and wil l . The Toronto Board of Police Commissioners deprives men of their legal rights and c i v i l liberties and its agents do so continuously. The Board, i t is true, seeks to restrain the Chief Constable from exercising his arbitrary will, law or no law, but does not succeed very well. The recent action of the Commission in banning a play, (Eight Men Speak), which, admittedly, i t could not by court action suppress, is an instance. . . . In this case the courts were evaded because they could not be depended upon to do what the Commission wanted done. . . . The Board has no lawful authority to permit meetings not to forbid them. But i t does. And i t forgives i t s employees for doing so even in contempt of its own orders. 32 The impact of the Depression upon Toronto thus extended far beyond material consequences. Indeed, i t was the background against which the citizen was forced to evaluate liberty and authority, not only because the crisis of the-Depression created an atmosphere of instability and ineffectiveness within existing institutions that demanded a response, but also because i t brought to the level of serious discussion immediate 93 questions about the place of the intellectual in public affairs and about the position and the activity of governmental authority in the economic l i f e of the nation. 94 CHAPTER IX METHODS OF PROTEST We have, therefore, no alternative but to appeal to your membership directly. . .and to build the united front within the rank and f i l e of the C.C.F. through local action. 1 Beckie Buhay of the Communist Party (May 23, 1933) An examination of the specific issues of c i v i l liberties in Toronto has indicated that diverse interpretations underlay the thinking of those groups who viewed these issues in terms of the transgression of the fundamental rights of the individual. That diversity of inter-pretation was reflected in the debate as to the methods to be employed to effect a change in municipal and governmental policy. In effect, i t spelled the doom of the formation of a solid body of public opinion, capable of expressing a united protest on behalf of " c i v i l liberties," and dissipated much useful energy in internal feuds and recriminations. For the Communist Party, the invasion of the workers* rights was inherent in the capitalistic liberal-democratic system, and became only sharper in degree with each succeeding economic crisis: There is no such thing as "free speech within the law" by which the vit a l struggle of the working class against capitalism. . .can be adequately set forth. The law is the expression of capitalist "justice" framed to protect the rights of property and to main-tain and perpetuate the present system of profit and plunder. 2 A l l law, not merely Section 98, was a manifestation of capitalist oppres-sion. Hence, to appeal to the justice of the courts was to betray the cause of " c i v i l liberty." For the Communist Party members, the means to secure c i v i l liberty lay in a process of mass mobilization of the workers 95 3 to register their protest against oppressive policies. Continual agitation—mass rallies, petitions, delegations to the government—was the means to secure an end to government intimidation. The Star may be taken as the representative of the liberal-democratic interpretation of individual rights. That interpretation ensured that supreme value was placed upon constitutional method. The Star*s objection to Draper*s activity lay in his attempt to judge before any offence had been committed. The proper policy was recourse to the courts, only after an overt offence had been committed. Similarly, the Star protested against the use of Section 98, not because i t espoused Communist doctrine, but because i t viewed that section as a needlessly extensive measure to deal with situations against which protection had already been provided in existing criminal law, through the laws against seditious utterance and unlawful assembly. For the C.C.F. leaders, the problem was perceived in similar termsj so too, the means for reversing government policy lay in recourse to constitutional methods, and, from its founding, the C.C.F. rejected the methods of the Communists. In reply to the Communist request for "united action" on >. this common issue of opposition to the frame-up of Tim Buck and to the horrible conditions of political prisoners," ^  the Regina Convention of the C.C.F. responded: We believe these ends cannot be achieved except by securing control of the government. We believe in constitutional methods to attain this result. On that point there is fundamental cleavage between us and the leaders of your organization who maintain c i v i l strife is inevitable. This policy in our opinion would result in the intensification of political oppression. We therefore are unable to see that any useful purpose could be served by such joint meetings and delegations. 96 On a concrete issue, however, this distinction over the methods to be employed for protest ^ tended to become blurred, particularly i f the issue aroused passion. In effect, the distinction over methods was often more theoretical than real, for the C.C.F. leaders frequently found i t 6 necessary to express protest through the same devices as the Communists. In doing so, however, they faced the danger of implying an .acceptance 7 of the Communist dogma and interpretation. Moreover, i f the C.C.F. leaders in Toronto were strongly anti-communist, the rank and f i l e of the C.C.F. were far from unanimous in their determination to avoid co-operation with the Communists and the use of their methods, i f that course 8 seemed to offer the most effective means of protest. Indeed, in August, 1935, the Mount Pleasant C.C.F. Club of Toronto submitted a resolution to the Ontario C.C.F. Council proposing, That the national convention of the C.C.F. delete a l l clauses in its by-laws of the constitution which prohibit unity of action between the C.C.F. and that of the Communist Party. 9 The clearest example of the dismal results that this tension over methods could produce was seen in the A. E. Smith t r i a l . Effective protest degenerated into essentially internal-feuding and recriminations within the C.C.F. that culminated in the national executive's suspension of the party organization in Ontario. The same dilemma over the methods of protest to be utilized emerged again over the reaction to the Regina Riot, although, on this occasion, the C.C.F. chose to respond in a different manner. Graham Spry of the C.C.F. was well aware of the dangers inherent in the use of methods that were, in fact, precisely the methods that the Communists were urging. He wrote: The leaders (of the Trekkers) insist on constitutional and legal action; i f other action is taken then i t wi l l 97 be taken by the authorities. Nevertheless the risk of conflict and bloodshed is great and we will get some of the blame. But i t is better to be blamed for being on the right side than on no side or the wrong side. 10 The difficulty of co-operating with the Communists at the tactical level, however, were soon to be revealed when effective united protest resolved itself into mutual recriminations over party dogma on the public plat-form in Toronto.^" The ineffective results that the problem over the methods of protest tended to produce may be finally observed over the attitude adopted toward the Canadian League against War and Fascism, a branch of an international organization created to protest against the growth of 12 fascist tendencies. In principle, organized labor and the C.C.F. were opposed to fascism. The League could provide an effective and common means of registering that protest; however, the opinion was prevalent 13 that the Canadian League's policy was dominated by the Communists. Hence the danger was that, in affiliating with the League, an organization signified an implicit acceptance of Communist dogma and methods. Labor organizations experienced internal divisions over the question of affiliation, and the' case was similar with the C.C.F. , At the first Congress of the Canadian League against War and Fascism, October, 1934, greetings were received from several Toronto C.C.F. clubs. At the Ontario C.C.F. Convention April, 1935, the St. Paul's Club introduced a resolution that the C.C.F. in session lend their sincere and whole-hearted support to the Canadian League-against War and Fascism, which movement is comprised of a l l shades of workers, religious and socialist thought, and on whose National Committee- are at present a number of C.C.F. followers. 14 98 The Chairman, however, ruled the resolution out- of order, and the C.C.F. failed to affiliate formally with the League. The end result was that no strong organization was created that agreed as to the methods to be employed-so as to conduct a viable protest against encroachment on the 15 rights of the individual. ' Efforts at protest thus continued to founder on the rock of internal feuds, and ensured that the entire question of "British c i v i l liberties" remained confused and submerged by internal struggles within individual organizations. 99 CHAPTER X CONCLUSION An examination of the reaction in Toronto during the early years of the Great Depression to specific issues that involved questions as to the relative values of liberty and authority has provided an oppor-tunity to observe—in microcosm—the realities of the Canadian acceptance of "traditional British liberties," particularly freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and the Canadian response to the Depres-sion that began in October, 1929. The picture that has emerged is one of extreme complexity—both in the diversity of reaction to the problem of liberty and authority among varying groups, and in the internal divergences of single organizations. It has been observed that the transgression of individual rights by the government could engender protest among significant, though small, sectors of the population. On the other hand, other sectors of the population could justify the same policies by denying that the problem of liberty existed in the face of the require-ments of authority. From the four specific cases that have been examined, i t would appear that the majority opinion lay on the side of "authority" rather than of "liberty." Further examination of the reaction in Toronto during the 1930*s to issues that similarly involved the respective limits of liberty and authority, such as the Hunger Marches on the Ontario Government, the Oshawa Strike, and the Quebec Padlock law, reveal a similar division of opinion. A l l of the participants in the controversy, except for a minute number of Communists, justified the position they took on liberty and 100 authority in the same terms, namely the "true understanding" of British tradition. However, close examination of specific issues in Toronto has revealed that "British tradition" was being defined within Toronto in a specifically Canadian context. What each side of the controversy was doing was selecting only those traditions and aspects of the British political, social and economic structure that i t saw as relevant to its characterization of the nature and needs of Canadian society. In some important respects, the attitudes adopted reflected a class interest, but the entire issue was more complex than a simple class interpretation 2 would imply. That "British tradition" was being continually defined in a Canadian context is perhaps most clearly seen in the example of the attitude adopted towards the success of the Labor Party in Britain in the election of 1930. To conservative-minded Canadians, this, in itself, was a departure from "British tradition." Saturday Night commented: The Labor Party. . .is in an intellectual sense as motley a crew as a dog ever barked at, composed. . . of countless dilettantes from a l l walks of society who have no constructive ideas of their own; but are sure that "the old gang" must be wrong anyway. . . . The result leaves British affairs in a state of gravest uncertainty and the saner elements among the British people in a condition of fear which is in the highest degree hazardous. 3 Clearly, Saturday Night had a concept of "British tradition" and Canadianism that reflected its own political, social and economic attitudes. It has been illustrated that diverse social assumptions,dictated the attitude adopted towards the relative balance of liberty and authority. The principal assumptions responsible for the resulting attitudes were related to different estimations of the character of the Russian Communist experiment, of the potency of its threat to Canadian society, and of the needs "and requirements imposed on Canadian society by the economic chaos 101 of the Great Depression. In each case, the issue was being decided in a specifically Canadian, not British, context. For many sectors of Toronto—-of which the Globe. the Telegram, and the Mail and Empire were the clearest expression—fear and insecurity, created by Soviet Russia and the Depression, dictated a stand scarcely in line with a tradition of British thinking that provided for the existence of the soap-box controversialists of Hyde Park. Such sectors of Toronto were attempting to define Canadianism in a rigid predetermined manner that was frequently justified by the appeal to Christianity and the "foreign" menace. Their conception contained much that was narrow and unthinking, for i t failed to take account of the need for change and re-adaptation in the face of the breakdown of the existing system. For these people, the real issue at stake was not liberty, but the preservation of order and authority in an unstable and creaking society that contained too many foreign or alien elements. In short, they were attempting to pre-serve Toronto and Canada as an Anglo-Saxon and individualistic, capitalis-tic society. For other sections of the city, of which the Star, the Canadian  Forum, and the C.C.F. are the best examples, Canadianism was being defined in an essentially different manner.' That conception found its roots in a confidence in the people's regard for the existing constitu-tional principles of Canadian institutions, even in the face of economic distress and hardship, together with the recognition of a need for persistent change to meet the inadequacies of the present Canadian system, even i f that change led in the direction of socialistic measures. For them, the real issue lay not so much in the need for authority in the face of instability as in the necessity of freedom of discussion so 102 as to ensure that the most efficacious re-adaptation would result in Canada—hence their appeal to those aspects of British tradition that provided for the existence of a Hyde Park, and for the place of the intellectual in the political discussions of the nation. In short, their definition of Canadianism reflected a conception quite different from an Anglo-Saxon, individualistic, capitalistic preserve. The response to the Depression among the majority in Toronto weighted the scales heavily on the side of authority—frequently to the detriment of liberty. It has been illustrated, however, that the typical response engendered by the Depression did e l i c i t a certain amount of criticism among sectors of Toronto, and that this was expressed voci-ferously upon such occasions as the arrest of the eight Communist leaders, the t r i a l of A. E. Smith, and the Regina Riot. In fact, a criti c a l spirit was gaining momentum within Canadian urban society. Through its very questioning of the limits of authority, that critical spirit served to widen the practical limits of the liberty that existed in Canadian 5 society of the 1930*s. No consensus emerged in Toronto as to the precise definition of Canadianism and of the Canadian conception of c i v i l liberties in the 1930*s. The lack of a common frame of reference in discussing c i v i l liberty thus meant that the entire question remained blurred and confused throughout the period, and, hence, did not emerge as a really signifi-6 cant political issue in the election of 1935 . Similarly, the question of c i v i l liberty was further complicated by the emergence of an increasing demand in the 1930*s, in the name of liberty, for more govern-ment intervention and control in the economic l i f e of the nation, by strains of anti-intellectualism, and by the lack of agreement as to the 103 methods of protest among those who could at least agree that an invasion of the liberty of the individual had been perpetrated by the Government. The myth of the whole-hearted Canadian acceptance of "British c i v i l liberties" and of the fine balance of liberty and authority in Canada thus lived on—to be disturbed only by the emergence of specific issues. Perhaps in such a conclusion one should find cause for lament, in that i t appears to reflect the lack of a distinct Canadian intellec-7 tual tradition. The conclusion, however, need not be so pessimistic. Viewed against the larger context of political philosophy, the manner in which the problem of liberty and authority emerged in Toronto was an inevitable accompaniment of the open society, in which the respective values and limitations "of liberty and authority can never be absolutely defined. In his presidential address to the Canadian Political Science Association in 1933, Professor E. J. Urwick of the University of Toronto underlined the ultimate impossibility of finding an ideal resolution to the problem of the relative claims of liberty and authority: . . . The claim to freedom is a single element in the social process, to which, of course, i t is entirely relative. The claim is connected at a l l times with the innovating impulse which calls itself progressive. It is opposed by the instinct of stability, which calls itself sane and conservative. . . The freedom claimed must.be regarded simply as an element of change, just as the power of authority is an implement of stability. The opposing parties fight for the right to use their respective implements. There i s no umpire or arbiter of the fight. There is and can be no settlement of the claim by reason. The battle is a recurrent one and must be so, until the social progress ends in the attainment of a perfect state. . . . . . . The arguments of the claimants of freedom gain a spurious validity from the appeal to progress, just as a l l counter-arguments gain a spurious validity from the appeal to order. . . . As advocates of one or the other, we do, of course, endow them with quality; but that is simply because we have already, in our thoughts, chosen to give an arbitrary quality to some particular change or to some existing element of stability. And the battle for freedom is nothing more than a phase of the recurrent battle for change, in which the pro-tagonists are doing nothing more (and nothing less) than exhibiting the impulses and instincts which emanate from the depths of their social experience, giving them both an exactly equal right to say: "We represent the true sense of need of our society." 8 105 NOTES Chapter I S t a t u t e s of Canada, 8-9, Elizabeth II, chapter 44. 2»Civil liberties" may be defined in the traditional sense as the rights of the individual in his relation to the state. In essence, a l l issues of c i v i l liberty resolve themselves into the problem of the relationship of the liberty of the individual and the authority of the state as the acknowledged protector of the law and order essential to civilized society. Hence the problem of liberty and authority within the state and " c i v i l liberties" are one and the same. 3james (Viscount) Bryce, Canada; An Actual Democracy (Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1924), p. 47. ^Canada: House of Commons: Special Committee on Human Rights  and Fundamental Freedoms. I960, p. 25. ^Such books as K. McNaught's A Prophet in Politics: a Biography  of J. S. Woodsworth (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959), and J. Gray's The Winter Years (Toronto: Macmillan Company, 1966), as well as numerous articles in the Canadian Forum suggest the dichotomy in the ideal and the reality of the balance of liberty and authority in the 1930»s in Canada. 106 Chapter II '''Bora Laskin, "An Inquiry i n t o the Diefenbaker B i l l of Rights", The Canadian Bar Review, V o l . 37, (1959), p. 80. 2 Numerous methods of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of " l i b e r t i e s " have been attempted. The preceding c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s i n accord with that found i n Bora Laskin, Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law (Toronto: The Carswell Co., 1960), p. 938, but numerous others e x i s t . See, f o r example, W.F. B©wker, "Basic Rights and Freedoms: What are they?", The Canadian Bar Review, v o l . 37, 1949, pp. 497-536. He indicates s i x s p e c i f i c areas of l i b e r t y : freedom to communicate information and ideas; immigration, deportation, c i t i z e n s h i p and voting; substantive protection of personal l i b e r t y ; r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and equal protection of the law; protection of property and contracts; procedure i n criminal and c i v i l cases and before administrative boards. 3 Ramsay Cook, "Canadian Liberalism i n Wartime, 1939-45", (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Queen's Uni v e r s i t y , 1956), p. 7. 4 Louis St. Laurent, "The Law of Quebec," The Canadian Bar Review, 1932, p. 445. 5 Cook, p. 11. M. B e l o f f , The Age of Absolutism, (London, 1954), p. 52. As quoted i n Cook, .p. 9. ^Cook, p. 9. 107 ° I n September, 1764, the newly-appointed Governor-General, James Murray, signed an Ordinance establishing c i v i l courts that were to determine law "having regard to the Law of England as far as the c i r -cumstances and present situation of things w i l l admit." (St. Laurent, p. 448), but the problem was by no means sett led. In commenting on the ordinance i n Campbell V. H a l l , 1 Cowper's K. B. Reports 288, Lord Mansfield held that. . '.'The laws of a conquered country continue i n force u n t i l they are altered by the conqueror. . . " Simularly Chief Justice Laf -ontaine, argued very strongly for the restoration of French c i v i l law. That there was much uncertainty as to the exact legal situation i s clear from the following judgment of Chief Justice | Lafontaine i n Wilcox v. Wile ox, 2 Lower Canada Jurist 12. In a l l cases of personal contracts and debts. . .the English law, i t would seem, pract ical ly ruled. . .but anomalies, un-avoidable i n the novel and transi t ion state i n which the colony and i t s judicature were placed did undoubtedly occur i n the administration of justice occasionally (there not being wanting those who have asserted that there was no fixed rule i n administering i t , justice being sometimes dealt out according to the one code and at times according to the other, and perhaps imperfectly i n reference to either . (As quoted i n St . Laurent, p. 450). ^Cook, p.15. 1 0 Reginald G. Trotter, Charters of Our Freedom (Toronto: Ginn and Co, 1946), pp. 1112. 1 1 J b i d . , p. 26. -L' iCited i n Law and Order i n Canadian Democracy: Crime and Police  Work i n Canada (Ottawa: Queen's Printer , 1952), p. 3. 108 This distinction is a commonplace in discussions of British law0 For one good presentation of i t see N.W. Rowell, "Presidential Address", Minutes of the Proceedings of the Canadian Bar Association, 1934, p. 41, ^ o c . c i t . ^A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Con-stitution (London: Macmillan and Co, Ltd., 1902), p. 184. 1 6Ibid., p. 189. 1 7Ibid., p. 191. Cohen in "Some Considerations on the Origins of Habeas Corpus", The Canadian Bar Review, 1938, pp. 93-1058 has commented on the historiography of Magna Carta in the following manner: This document besides evoking much rhetoric has been credited at various times with almost everything that forms the base of Anglo-American c i v i l liberties. Until a generation or two ago, legal historians were inclined to accept this tradition, but a more critical spirit has since prevailed and now the realities and limitations of Magna Carta are becoming more widely appreciated, (p. 94). William Stubbs in Select Charters. 1900, p. 296, wrote of Magna Carta: "The whole constitutional history-of England is a commentary on this chapter". For the revisionist point of view, see, for example, Magna Carta Commenation Essays, 1915, F. Thompson, Magna Carta, London: Oxford University Press, 1948. Cohen, p. 95. 109 20 Leon Radzinowicz, A History of English Criminal Law and i t s Administration from 1750, I (London: Stevens and Sons Ltd., 1948), p. 3, According to Blackstone the number of crimes punishable by death i n the eighteenth century was 160, but no precise figures are a v a i l a b l e , (p. 3.) 21 Cohen, p. 95. 22 W.R. Lederman, "The Nature and Problems of a B i l l of Rights", The Canadian Bar Review. Vol, 37, 1959, p. 7. 23 ' Dicey, Law of the Constitution, p. 245. 24 A. V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation Between Law and Public  Opinion i n England during the Nineteenth Century; ( London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1905), p. 435. 2 5 D i c e y , Law of the Constitution, p. 242. 26 Alber t a Press Case, 1938, 2 DLR 81 at p. 107. 27 B. Laskin, Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law, p. 870. 28 Law and Order i n Canadian Democracy, p. 23. 29 Cook, p. 20. 30 These subjects are found i n the following sections of the Criminal Code: blasphemous l i b e l , section 118; l i b e l , sections 317-334; s e d i t i o n , sections 130-134; unlawful assembly, sections 87-97; from J . Crankshaw, Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada.: (Toronto' The Carswell Co. Ltd., 1924). 110 31 Crankshaw, p. 147 a 32 Law and Order in Canadian Democracy, p. 137. Crankshaw, p. 107-108. 34 Section 98 of the Criminal Code w i l l be examined more f u l l y i n a l a t e r chapter. ^Statutes of Canada, 9-10, Geo. V, Chap. 46. See a l s o F.R. Scott, "The T r i a l of the Toronto Communists," Queen's Quarterly, v o l . 39, 1932, p. 513. 36 Senate of Canada: Session 1939. Report to the Speaker of the  Senate by the Parliamentary Counsel r e l a t i v e to the enactment of the  B r i t i s h North America Act, 1867, p. 111. 37 D.A. Schmeiser i n C i v i l L i b e r t i e s i n Canada (London: Oxford Un-i v e r s i t y Press, 1964), has enumerated s i x d i f f e r e n t views of the con-s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n of basic p o l i t i c a l l i b e r t i e s . To date, the Supreme Court of Canada has not given j u d i c i a l approval to any of these views. They may be catagorized as follows: 1. ) p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i s unlimited with regard to basic freedoms according to section 92, subsection 13 (property and c i v i l r i g h t s ) . 2. ) unlimited l e g i s l a t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n f a l l s within Dominion control under i t s general power to make laws " f o r the peace, order, and good government of Canada." I l l 3. ) some of our basic freedoms are not separate subject matters committed exclusively to either Parliament or the legislatures, but, in^some "aspects," f a l l within federal jurisdiction and, in others, f a l l within provincial juris-diction. 4. ) neither Parliament nor the legislatures may infringe on our traditional liberties because of the preamble to the B.N.A. Act and a resultant reference to English constitu-tional history. 5. ) basic liberties are guaranteed, by implication, in certain sections of the B.N.A. Act. Section 17, for example, establishes a Parliament for Canada. 6. ) rights which find their source in natural law cannot be taken away by positive law. For a f u l l discussion of the implications of the various views presented here, reference may be made to Schmeiser, pp. 13-20. 3%. R. Riddell, The Constitution of Canada in its History and  Practical Working (London: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 99. 39p. R. Scott, "Dominion Jurisdiction over Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms," The Canadian Bar Review. 1949, p. 502. Scott enumerates six instances of absolute limitations on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: The use of the English and French language is guaranteed by section 133; the right to separate schools by section 93; the right to an annual session of Parliament by section 20; the right to a new Parliament every five years by section 50; the right to representation by population by section 51; the right to an independent judiciary by section 99. 112 As quoted above from B. Laskin, Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law, p. 870. ^Lederman, p. 10. 42 Section 92, Subsection 26. Scott, " J u r i s d i c t i o n over Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", p. 510. The administration i s as important as the d e f i n i t i o n of a law fo r the purpose of safeguarding freedom. How p r o v i n c i a l and municipal p o l i c e behave i n enforcing the federal criminal law i s very important to our c i v i l l i b e r t i e s and t h e i r behaviour i s determined by the provinces. 44 Walter S. Tarnopolsky, The Canadian B i l l of Rights (Toronto: * The Carswell Co. Ltd., 1966), p. 34. See al s o Scott, J u r i s d i c t i o n over Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", p. 520. 113 Chapter III Ijesse Edgar Middleton, The Municipality of Toronto—a History I (Toronto: Dominion Publishing Co., 1923)-, pp. 405-6. 2Canada: Seventh Census of Canada. 1931, (Ottawa, 1933). I, Population p. 542. 3 An examination of the Toronto daily newspapers in the 1930*s, particularly the Star, the Telegram and the Globe, reveals constant references to-Toronto's reputation for "Britishness." ^Middleton, The Municipality of Toronto, I, p. 404. 5Ibid., p. 402. 6seventh Census of Canada, Bulletin 22, Population by Racial  Origin, p. 209. The total native-born population of Toronto in 1931 amounted to 392,995, approximately sixty-five per cent of the total population of the city. 7jbid., p. 210. ^Seventh Census of Canada, Bulletin 40. Population of the  Municipal Wards of the Cities of Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec and Ottawa. . . , p. 21. o 7Canada: Sixth Census of Canada, I, Population, p. 542. The total population of Toronto in 1921 was 521,893. The foreign segment of the population of Toronto increased by approximately four per cent in the ten year period. 1 0Star, March 8, 1934. 114 ^The precise form that the maintenance of the British connection should assume was not entirely a matter for agreement; similarly, the specific content of the phrases "British liberty" and constitutionalism were unable to be defined in any absolute sense. 1 2J.E. Middleton, Toronto's 100 Years (Toronto: the Centennial Committee, 1934), p. 98, 1 3Ibid., p. 100. 1 4Ibid., p. 101* 15Middleton, The Municipality of Toronto. I, pp. 788-9. ^Loc. c i t . 17Middleton, Toronto's 100 Years, p. 46 1 8Star, July 29, 1930, Sam Factor, in Toronto West Centre, was the only successful Liberal candidate within the city. 19 Ibid., October 16, 1935. The Liberals elected only two members from Toronto in 1935, Sam Factor (Spadina) and Hugh Plaxton (Trinity). The Star pointed out, however, that the popular vote for the Conservatives in Toronto in 1935 was only 3870>but that they were aided by three - and four - way contests with Liberal, C.C.F., and Reconstructionist candi-dates in every riding. 20 C.S. Clark, Of Toronto the Good: a Social Study - The Queen  City as i t is (Montreal: Toronto Publishing Co., 1898), p. 3. 115 21Edwin C. Guillet, Toronto from Trading Post to Great City (Toronto: the Ontario Publishing Co. Ltd., 1934), p. 387. 29 Seventh Census of Canada. Population by Religious Denomination. p. 136, Anglicans and United churchmen formed the largest single Protestant denominations of the city. According to the 1931 census, they recorded 198,921 and 136,181 adherents respectively. Roman Catholics numbered 90,532 and Jews, 45,205. 2 3Guillet, p. 377. 24Middleton, Toronto's 100 Years, p. 134. Bruce West, Toronto (Toronto: Doubleday Canada Ltd., 1967), p. 242, 26 Canadian Forum, October 6, 1931, p. 6. 27 Toronto's growth as a financial centre was influenced largely by land developments on the Prairies and the discovery of minerals in the Canadian Shield. In 1935, Toronto's share of high-value securities exceeded that of Montreal for the first time and remained ahead thereafter. (D. Kerr and J. Spelt, The Changing Face of Toronto - A Study in Urban  Geography (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1965), pp. 83-84.) Middleton, Toronto's 100 Years, p. 83. O Q Middleton, The Municipality of Toronto, II, p. 495. 30 Middleton, Toronto's 100 Years, p. 80. 116 31Middleton,.The Municipality of Toronto, II, p. 508, 32 The total number of wage-earners in Toronto in 1931 was 238,757. (Seventh Census of Canada, V, p. 20.) According to the Annual  Report of Labor Organization in Canada (1931) there were 147 unions in Toronto. 110 of those unions reported a total membership of 25,626. (Twenty-first Annual Report of Labor Organization in Canada, 1931, p. 239.) 33Middleton, Toronto's 100 Years, p. 146. The Toronto Industrial Commission had been set up to make known the great advantages of Toronto as a site for manufacturing. The Board of Directors consisted of the Mayor, and members of the Board of Trade and Canadian Manufacturers' Association. According to J.E. Middleton, the Commission, in its first four years of existence, had secured 82 new industries. C.L. Burton, of the R. Simpson Co. was among the members of the Commission (Toronto's 100 Years, p. 147). 35 Middleton, The Municipality of Toronto, I, p. 485. Ibid., p. 404. 37 H.M. Cassidy, Unemployment and Relief in Ontario. 1929-32. A Survey and Report (Toronto: J.M. Dent and Sons' Ltd., 1933), p. 48. 38 It must be noted, however, that Toronto was not the hardest hit by the Depression. Indeed, many smaller cities of Ontario and the Western provinces, particularly, Alberta and Saskatchewan, were to suffer more than Toronto. 117 39 City of Toronto: Annual Report of the Commissioner of Finance. Treasury Department, 1932, p. 12. ^°Ibid., p. 7. 41 Annual Report. 1929, p. 8. 42 Cassidy, p. 19. 4 3Ibid.. p. 43. 44 Ibid.. p. 44. 45 Ibid., p. 40. 46T Loc. cit. 4 7Ibid., p. 41. ""^Ibid., p. 51. 49 D. King, "Unemployment Relief: Direct Aid," p. 84 in L . Richter (editor), Canada's Unemployment Problem (Toronto: Macmillan Co. of Canada Ltd., 1933). Both the Toronto Civic Unemployment Relief Committee and the House of Industry were private organizations receiving aid from the municipal government for the relief of the unemployed. "^Annual Report of the Commissioner of Finance. 1931, p. 58. Clothing was distributed from a central depot while other kinds of aid, e.g. food, were distributed by voucher. The work of investigation was carried on through five district offices in the city, each with a 118 district relief officer. The department as a whole was responsible to the City Council. (D. King, p. 84), The administration of rent relief, however, was left largely to private agencies such as the Neighbourhood Workers' Association, the Jewish Family Welfare Bureau, and the Catholic Welfare Bureau, (see H.M. Cassidy, p. 218). -**Annual Report of the Commissioner of Finance. 1933, p. 12, In addition, both the federal and provincial governments gave substantial grants to the city. In 1933, federal and provincial contributions amounted to $4,286,142, 52 Annual Report, 1930, p. 8. 53 Cassidy, p. 165. 54 Report of the Lieutenant-Governor's Committee on Housing  Conditions in Toronto, 1934, p. 52. •^Ibid.. p. 18. The Committee defined the "minimum standard of amenities" in the following manner: a) freedom from.serious dampness b) adequate lighting and heating in winter c) sanitary conveniences including an inside sink d) accommodations for preparing and cooking of food e) Capability of being free from rats. *^Ibid., p. 115. 57Canadian Forum, 1931, p. 444. 119 Chapter IV *As quoted in J.S. Woodsworth Papers. P.A.C., f i l e 26. 'The Toronto Board of Police Commissioners was composed of two police magistrates, appointed by the Ontario government, and the Mayor of the City, who presided over the Board as Chairman. Until September, 1931, the Chief of Police acted as Secretary to the Board, but, under Mayor Wm. J. Stewart, the Chief was relieved of this position. With the reorganization, however, the Chief continued to attend meetings in an advisory capacity. For the major part of the period under discussion, Mayor William J. Stewart was the Chairman of the Board of Police Com-missioners (1931-4). Among the magistrates serving on the Board were Judge M. Morson (he retired in 1931), Judge Emerson Coatsworth, Judge J. Parker and J.R.L. Starr (RC). In an interview,former Mayor Stewart confirmed the suspicion prevalent at the time that Coatsworth was the real force behind the determination of policy, and the firm pillar of support for Draper on the Board until his resignation was demanded by the Ontario Government in the aftermath of the Dorland Inquiry (September, 1933) . (Hepburn, Papers P.A.O. f i l e : Department of the Attorney General, 1934) . The period under examination witnessed constant friction between Mayor Stewart on the one hand, and Coatsworth and Draper on the other, both in the realm of principle and personality. The Star and the Telegram continually comment upon the numerous personal quarrels that arose. Stewart affirmed that there was intense personal antagonism between them. He himself was opposed to Draper's methods of handling public 120 meetings and, alone of the Police Commissioners, he voted to have him removed as Chief of Police. He asserted that, on one occasion, he contemplated resigning his position as Mayor so as to be relieved of his duty as Chairman of the Board of Police Commissioners, and, hence, of having to bear the responsibility for Draper's actions. The basis of Stewart's antagonism to Draper seems to have been his dislike of Draper's militaristic methods in running the Toronto police force, and of his over-riding and obscurantist fear of Communism. (Interview with W.J. Stewart, July 5, 1968). Evetu with the resignation of Coatsworth, Draper's chief support, the problem over public meetings and gatherings did not completely disappear. For example, in July, 1934, the Hepburn govern-ment found i t necessary to remove both Parker and Starr from the Board because of their refusal to permit a delegation of "Hunger Marchers" to enter the city so as to present their petition to the provincial govern-ment. (Star. July 15, 1934). 3 Brigadier-General Dennis C. Draper was not a native of Toronto, but came from the Eastern Townships of Quebec. He was an Anglican and claimed to be of Scottish descent. (Interview with R.A. Anderson, July 5, 1968). Suspicion was strong that he had been appointed to the post of Chief of Police in 1928 through political influence at Ottawa. He had had no previous experience in police administration, and, at the time of his appointment, he had been engaged in road construction in Quebec. The appointment was made with the approval of Morson and Coatsworth of the Board of Police Commissioners, but, without that of its chairman, Mayor Sam McBride. (Interview with W.J. Stewart, July 5, 1968). An 121 article in Maclean's (August 15, 1928) emphasized his outstanding reputa-tion in the military field in World War I. He was an Eastern Township farmer who turned soldier as quickly as he could exchange his hay fork for a Ross r i f l e . " The Canadian Forum characterized Draper as a man with affiliations to many fraternal organizations and orders, and as a strong member of an influential branch of the Canadian Legion in Toronto (February, 1938). ^The party's intensified activity had been largely in response to the demands of the Sixth Comintern Congress (i.e. the Communist Inter-national) as accepted by the Canadian Communist party in June 1929, at the Sixth National Convention. (Attorney General of Ontario: Communist Party of Canada, Box 8.) 5Cited in Canadian Labor Defender. May, 1930. ^Telegram. August 15, 1929. 7Mail and Empire. August 14, 1929. 8 A.E. Smith, All My Life (Toronto: Progress Books, 1944), p. 102. 9 Such organizations included the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the International League for Peace and Freedom, the Movement for a Christian Social Order, the Independent Labor Party, the Workers' Ex-Ser-vicemen's League, the Rationalist Society, the Canadian Labor Defence League, the Council for Progressive Labor Action. ^Woodsworth Papers, f i l e 26. 122 Debates, 1931, IV, p. 3479. 12 Clearly, the Fellowship was not a Communist-dominated organ-ization. Among the members of the Toronto branch were Rabbi Maurice N. Eisendrath (President); Dr. George T. Webb of the Baptist Board of Sunday Schools (Vice-President), J.F. White, editor of the Canadian  Forum; Margaret Gould of the Child Welfare Council; G. Raymond Booth of the Friends' Society; Professor H. Lasserre of Victoria College; Dr. T. Albert Moore, executive secretary of the United Church of Canada; Rev. W0A. Cameron, pastor of Yorkminster Baptist Church. (Woodsworth Papers, f i l e 26), 1 ^  JCanadian Forum, (February, 1931), p. 168. Coatsworth asserted that when he called the F. O.R. a "communist" organization he had in mind an article written by Rabbi Eisendrath and published in the Canadian  Forum, ("Russia vs. Rehgion ", June, 1930). 14 Star. January 9, 1931. "I could not, under the circumstances, rent the hall", Don Pierce, manager of the Empire Theatre asserted. *-*All of the Toronto papers reported the meeting in the greatest detail. The Mail and Empire hailed Coatsworth as the great conciliator because he asserted that he was "willing to bury the hatchet" (Mail &  Empire, January 24, 1931), but i t appears that i t was Mayor Stewart who provided the settlement in enunciating the principle of "free speech within the law" (Star, January 24, 1931). 123 1 6Star, January 18, 19, 20, 1931. 1 7Ibid., February 26, 1932. Section 98, sub-section 5, prescribed the penalty for knowingly allowing unlawful assemblies on one's premises. 18 The Movement for a Christian Social Order was the forerunner of the Fellowship for a Christian Social Order. "The Observer" (i.e. Rev. Salem Bland) described the organization in the following manner: It is in the first place above everything a religious, a Christian meeting...and in the second place, i t is just as frankly and unreservedly open for free discussion of social reform even of the most radical type...* (Star. January 17, 1932). It met weekly in Hygeia Hall under the guidance of Professor John Line, Professor of Ethics, Victoria College. 1 9Star, January 30, 1932. 2°Ibid.. January 24, 1931. 2 1Ibid., August 22, 1929. The by-law prohibiting religious meetings in parks had been the result of a series of unruly confrontations between different religious organizations in the early years of the century. The law, however, had been passed by the municipal government, and not by an order of the Police Commissioners. 2 2Ibid., March 29, 1933. The Star argued that the Police Commission had acquired the job only as a matter of convenience and practicality in the absence of a municipal department of architecture. "The reason for the licensing of public halls...are material reasons 124 . . .and they have nothing whatever to do with the race, religion, colour, politics, thought or opinions of those who assemble. . . . The job should really be done by the city Architect fs Department." 23crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada. (1924), pp. 115-116. 2 4Star, August 17, 1929. 25lbid.. January 13, 1931. That resolution did not necessarily reflect the view of the entire Toronto police force. R. A. Anderson (District Inspector, #5 Station) asserted that he had been totally opposed to Draper's policy; moreover, he asserted that many of the men supported Draper from fear of his influence rather than from conviction. (Interviews with Wm. J. Stewart and R. A. Anderson, July (5, 1968). In fact, i t was not the duty or the usual practice of the Police Association of Toronto to express its opinions on such issues of public importance. The Star commented: . . . The resolution adopted at a meeting of the members of the police force must however embarrass the Police Commissioners and the Chief of Police. They could not have known that members of the force would take this action, for i t is clearly a breach of discipline. It is itself an "interference" in police administration. (January 14, 1931). 2 6The Star was owned by J. E. Atkinson of Toronto. , He himself was a prominent member of the Liberal party and his paper, on most issues, supported the Liberal party. In many respects, however, Atkinson's views lay to the left of the Liberal party and the editorial columns of the Star tended to reflect this. It seems probable that the Star's 125 continual concern over the invasion of l i b e r t y by the Toronto p o l i c e was a r e f l e c t i o n of Atkinson's own concern. On many occasions, however, Atkinson was accused of opportunism i n taking up the positi o n s that he did . J.H. Cranston, a former editor of the Star Weekly, and hence an associate of Atkinson^thought that, at l e a s t i n th i s case, the accusations were untrue. (J.H. Cranston, Ink on My Fingers (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1953), p. 160.) 2 7 S t a r , August 20, 1929. OQ I b i d . , February 11, 1931. 2 9 I b i d . , September 1, 1931. 3 0 I b i d . , January 23, 1931. 3 1Founded only i n 1933, the C.C.F. entered the struggle r e l a t i v e l y l a t e , yet i t did play an instrumental r o l e i n bringing about a reversal of the Draper p o l i c y . Former Mayor Stewart asserted that Capt. Elmore P h i l p o t t , a member of the CC.F. , played an important part when he appeared on the bandstand i n Queen's Park at a "Free Speech r a l l y " , and refused to move at the p o l i c e demands. (Interview with wm. J . Stewart, J u l y 5, 1968). Toronto was the centre of the C.C.F. movement i n Ontario and i t s organization consisted of members of the U.F.O., the Labor Conference, and the Clubs Section. About fourteen clubs existed i n Toronto and the Labor Conference section found i t s main strength i n Toronto. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to estimate the strength of the party i n 126 in the early years of the 1930's. In view of the election results in the 1935 federal election, one might assert that support for the party was certainly not widespread. G. Caplan, "The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Ontario, 1932-45", (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1961), p. 56. 3 3Star, March 27, 1933. 34 The Communist Party was not strong in Toronto: "Our membership in Toronto which was around 500 at one time, is now down to less than 200, and this condition is reflected in the district generally...We have not a single shop group here... Work among the unemployed is very weak in comparison with other districts...The district owes over $2,000 to the centre." Attorney-General of Ontario: Communist Party of Canada, Box 8, Envelope 3, Report of District #3, March 5, 1931. 35 The C. L.D. L. founded in 1925, as an organization to provide legal aid for the defence of workingmen's rights, had rapidly been transformed into a Communist-dominated organization. In effect, i t claimed to be a branch of the International Red Aid. According to statistics revealed at the 1933 Congress for the Repeal of Section 98 which was held under its auspices, the League found its largest support in Toronto and surrounding districts. In fact, i t claimed the support of 3,800 members from the Toronto district, and numbered among its affiliates the Workers' Ex-Serviceman's League, the Workers* Unity League, the Industrial Union of Needle Trade Workers, the Friends of the Soviet, Union, the Progressive Arts Club. Its statistics indicated 127 that Anglo-Saxon elements formed the largest part of the membership. It is not possible to discover if this was the case for Toronto, however, since the division by racial origin is not calculated according to area. (See R.P. Archambault, La Menace Communiste au Canada. 1935, pp. 6-9.) An examination of the C.L.D.L. petitions for repeal of section 98 in the R.B. Bennett Papers and the G.S. Henry Papers reveals that, almost invariably, the Toronto petitions were signed by ethnic groups such as Poles, Yugoslavs, and Lithuanians. 3 6The Worker. January 17, 1931. 37 The letter originated from a small group of faculty members within the University that met for lunch and discussion at noon in Hart House. Among the members of the group were Professor F. Underhill of the History Department, Professor E. Havelock of the Classics Department, Victoria: College, Professor J. Line, professor of Ethics, Victoria College, and Professor H. Wastaneys of Pharmacy. The petition was hurriedly circulated and sent to the press because there was fear that the professors might be prevented from making i t public. A large number of the professors who signed the letter were from the Departments of Political Economy and History, but this was simply because they had been approached fir s t , largely through Professor F. Underhill. In writing the letter, the small group of professors were consciously follow-ing the Oxford tradition where professors did not hesitate to state their views on controversial issues of importance. (Interview with F. Underhill, June 18, 1968). Professor Underhill was of the opinion that the view 128 of the 68 did not represent the typical view of a l l the professors of the university, but Professor G.P. de T. Glazebrook was of the opposite opinion. 38 Star, January 15, 1931. The Star printed the names and faculties of the 68 professors.' 39 In the poll, 26% of the students voted. 1491 supported the professors' stand while 308 were opposed. Of the university staff, a l l but 234 were polled. 161 aligned themselves with the 68 while 72 were opposed. However, 219 refused to express an opinion, despite the fact that no names were to be recorded. The staff of the Varsity termed them the "mute inglorious", and commented: It looks strangely as i f the 219 were thinking of their jobs, their bread and butter. They have heard ominous rumblings from the direction of the Board of Trade dinners and the columns of the morning press. (Varsity. January 20/31). 40 Varsity. Nov. 7/29. Rev. Salem Bland spoke in favor of "free speech" and was greeted by tremendous cheering. Mayor "Sam" McBride defended the Police Commission asserting "95% of citizens are with Chief Draper". 4lMelvyn Pelt, "The Communist Party of Canada 1929-1942", (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1964), p. 77. 4? The New Outlook, January 21, 1931, p. 53. ^ 3Star, January 15, 1931. 129 44Canada: Annual Report on Labor Organization in Canada. Ottawa, 1931, p. 171. The Toronto District Labor Council was a conservative organization of labor representing unions affiliated with the A.F. of L. The National Labor Council, a rival of the District Labor Council, representing unions affiliated with the All-Canadian Congress of Labour, likewise protested the activity of Draper and the Police Commission. (Star, January 13, 1931). 4 5Star, August 16, 1929. 4^The Star frequently asked this question. The policy was never fully laid aside during the period of investigation. However, i t did undergo a significant change in October, 1933, in the aftermath of the Dorland Inquiry and the protest rallies held by_the C. C.F., Specific areas were set aside for the holding of meetings and were to be licensed by the Parks Commission. The fact that the policy continued so long was probably due to Draper himself and the support he possessed on the Board of Police Commissioners. 47 The Globe was owned and operated by William Gladstone Jaffray, of Toronto, the son of Senator R. Jaffray. He was a funda-mentalist Presbyterian and a strict moralist. Throughout the period under investigation, the Globe refused to print advertisements for liquor, cigarettes and girdles, and its editorial page was persistently filled with matters of religion. The Globe had once been a Liberal organ, but by the 1930's i t took an independent position and was frequently in opposition to the Liberal policy. In the election of 130 1935, however, i t supported the Liberal party. The Globe's stand on "free speech" directly reflected the views of its owner. (Interview with Wm. J. Stewart). 48 Globe. January 16, 1931. 4 9Ibid., January 12, 1931. ~*^Ibid., January 13, 1931. The Globe was referring here to the interference of local politicians in police administration. -^Telegram, January 17, 1931. The Telegram had been founded by J.S, Robertson. In the 1930*s i t was administered through the J.S. Robertson Trust Fund. Its editors were J.R. Robinson and CO. Knowles, and i t usually reflected the views of the Conservative party. (Interview with Wm. J. Stewart, July 5, 1968). 52R.B. Bennett Papers, P..A.C. C-650,Vol. 252, Document no. 54771. -*3The Sentinel was owned by H.C. Hocken of Toronto, a former Conservative member of Parliament. No statistics were available in regard to the Sentinel's circulation figures. It appears, however, that the circulation was not high. Its editors were constantly calling for campaign drives to increase circulation and lamented the fact that many lodges were not permanent subscribers. 54 The Sentinel, August 29, 1929. -'-'Interview w i t h D. Archer, Toronto District Labor Council, July 131 3, 1968. Similarly, Mayor Stewart was a staunch member of the Orange Order and he was opposed to Draper's policy. He asserted that he never encountered any opposition to his stand within the Order, but i t must be noted that his stand was ambiguous in that, as a member of the Police Commission,he bore official responsibility for its policy (July 5, 1968). Further evidence of the ambiguity of his position is clear from the fact that he was continuously supported by the Star, the Telegram and the Globe, although they took diverse stands on the issue. 5 6Financial Post, January 29, 1931. ~*7Star, January 20, 1931. The occassion was the annual meeting of the Toronto Board of Trade. 5 9Loc. c i t . 59Canadian Forum, February, 1931, p. 168. 6 0Labor Leader. Feb. 20, 1931. 6 lStar, January 21, 1931. 62 Star, January 22, 1931. The Star personally interviewed a number of the professors of the university. C O Globe, Mail & Empire. January 19, 1931. 6 4H.J. Canon Cody Papers, P.A.0. 1931 f i l e , February 12, 1931. The Globe hinted that the feeling was strong among certain members of 132 the Board for censuring the professors but that they were overruled. The Board of Governors consisted of the following persons: Canon Cody, Sir R. Falconer,V. Massey, Dr. H.B. Anderson, Dr. P.W. Merchant, Dr. Bruce Macdonald, Angus McMurchy, F.G. Osier, N.W. Rowell, Sir W. Mulock, Eric Armour, Col. A.E. Gooderham, J.J. Gibson (Varsity, January 23, 1931). 65Canadian Forum, February 1931. 6 6Loc. c i t . 67 The New Outlook tended to reflect the personal views of its editor, Dr. W.B. Creighton. 68Canadian Forum, February, 1931. ^^Miss Gilkison, the Telegram noted, was also a member of the National Council of Women, United Empire Loyalists, York Pioneers, and the 1.0.D.E. - "one of the best known ladies in the public l i f e of Ontario". (January 31, 1931). 7°Telegram, January 31, 1931. 7debates, 1931, vol. IV, p. 4435. 7 2Ibid., p. 3477. 7 3 I n 1931, the Star's daily average of copies was 183,010. By 1933,it had risen to 214,859. The Globe, on the other hand, had decreased. In 1931,its daily average was 107,202. By April 1933, i t 133 had fallen to 93,470. The Telegram also experienced a slight decrease. In 1931, its daily average was 145,872, while in 1933, i t was 143,047. The Mail and Empire experienced a slight increase. It rose from 113,066 in 1931 to 120,295 in 1935. Of course, the total subscription of the Globe, the Telegram, and the Mail and Empire far outnumbered that of the Star. 74 Interview with F . Underhill. Presumably trips to unfamiliar places in the world, like that of Gordon Sinclair in 1933, attracted an eager and interested audience. ^The Canadian Forum's circulation in the 1930's was approximately 3,000. The results of a survey showed that i t tended to appeal to the upper middle sectors of the population. The New Outlook suffered a serious decline in the 30's. By 1935 its circulation totalled only 15,000. It is quite possible that there was a direct relation between the expression of particular ; views in the paper and its rapid f a l l in circulation. See M. Prang, "Some Aspects of Political Radicalism in Can-ada between the two World Wars", (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1953), pp. 16-19. 7 6 Seventh Census of Canada. 1931,volume VI, p. 688. Labor organization in the 1930's in Toronto presents a very confused picture. Most unions, however, were affiliated with the Toronto District Labor Council, representing the A.F. of L. unions; the National Labor Council representing the All-Canadian Congress of Labor; or the Workers' Unity 134 League, <a Ccmnnunist-dominated union organization. The Toronto District Labor Council had a membership of 25,000, while the National Labor Council had about 5,000 members. No statistics are available as to the number of workers affiliated to the W.U. L. in Toronto, (Labor Organiza-tion in Canada, 1931, p. 236). 7 7Such comments are frequent in the Canadian Forum and the Star. Professor F. Underhill saw this apathy as the chief barrier to constructive action by a group such as the CC.F. in the 1930's. (Interview, June 18, 1968). 7 8Star, January 17, 1931. 135 C h a p t e r V ''"D.C. M a s t e r s , The W i n n i p e g G e n e r a l S t r i k e . ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1 950), p. 155. 2 D e b a t e s , 1919, V o l . I V , p. 3887. As quoted i n R. Cook. A c c o r d i n g t o F.R. S c o t t , t h e i n s p i r a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 98 was t h e A m e r i c a n E s p i o n a g e A c t . (F.R. S c o t t , P r o c e e d i n g s of the C a n adian P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a -t i o n , 1933, p. 176.) 3 S t a t u t e s o f Canada, 9-10, Geo. V, Chapt. 46, S S . l . 4 I b i d . , SS.2. 5 S t a t u t e s o f Canada, 55-60 Geo. V., Chap. 29, S. 123. "No one s h a l l be deemed t o have a s e d i t i o u s i n t e n t i o n o n l y because he i n t e n d s i n good f a i t h . . . . t o p o i n t o u t e r r o r s . . . . i n the government o f t h e U n i t e d Kingdom....or of Canada o r any p r o v i n c e t h e r e o f . o r t o e x c i s e H i s M a j e s t y ' s s u b j e c t s t o a t t e m p t t o p r o c u r e , by l a w f u l means, th e a l t e r a t i o n o f any m a t t e r i n t h e s t a t e . . . . " R. H a r k n e s s , J . E . A t k i n s o n of t h e S t a r ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1 963), p. 291. 7 There i s a c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r who was u l t i m a t e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t a k i n g a c t i o n a g a i n s t the Communist P a r t y . I n f a c t , t h e a t t i t u d e was p r e v a l e n t t h a t t h e O n t a r i o government had t a k e n a c t i o n a t t h e u r g i n g o f the F e d e r a l M i n i s t e r o f J u s t i c e , Hugh G u t h r i e . G u t h r i e , however, d e n i e d 136 any connection whatsoever with the arrest and subsequent t r i a l of the Communists, though, of course, he indicated his approval of the action taken. An examination of the papers of the Department of Justice would be necessary to answer the question of ultimate responsibility. (See M. L. Pelt, pp. 82-85.) °F. R. Scott, "The Trial of the Toronto Communists," Queen's  Quarterly. (Vol. 39, August, 1932), p. 515. first attempt to utilize Section 98 in Toronto in 1929 had been unsuccessful. (Rex V. Weir, (1929) 52 Canadian Criminal Code 111). The case concerned the distribution of circulars by the Communist Party calling for demonstrations against the terrorism of the Toronto police. Judge Denton asserted: . . .nowhere in the circular do I find anything which advocates the use of physical force, violence or terrorism . . . . It may be contended that in advocating the over-throw of capitalism the circular advocates an industrial or economic change. But before there can be a conviction i t must also be shown that i t advocated the use of force or violence to accomplish this purpose. I do not think anyone reading this circular could fairly come to the conclusion that i t advocates any such theory, (p. 118). 1 0Scott, "The Trial of the Toronto Communists," p. 520. Ustar, November 11, 1931. Similarly, Hugh Macdonald, counsel for the defence, asserted: . . . The Crown speaks of f*Revolution" and "class struggle" as i f there were some crime in them alone. . . We must bear in mind that i t is no crime to teach a doctrine calling itself 137 r e v o l u t i o n o r s o c i a l i s m . . . . N o one has even s u g g e s t e d t h a t s t o n e s were thrown by the a c c u s e d . . . . " ( S t a r , Nov. 12/31). ^ 2 T h e Communist l e a d e r s were s e n t e n c e d t o f i v e y e a r terms o f im-p r i s o n m e n t on c h a r g e s o f b e l o n g i n g t o an u n l a w f u l a s s o c i a t i o n and two y e a r s f o r b e i n g p a r t i e s t o a s e d i t i o u s c o n s p i r a c y , b o t h o f w h i c h were t o be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y i n K i n g s t o n . The J u r y t h a t condemned them was composed o f two f a r m e r s , two e l e c t r i c i a n s , an e n g r a v e r , a draughtsman, an a c c o u n t a n t , a watchmaker, a b u f f e r , a c a r p e n t e r and a s t o r e k e e p e r (F.R. S c o t t , "The T r i a l o f t h e T o r o n t o Communists", p. 515). A l a t e r a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t o f O n t a r i o , ( J a n u a r y , 1932), however, quashed t h e c h a r g e of " s e d i t i o u s c o n s p i r a c y " , though i t d i d n o t a l t e r t h e a c t u a l l e n g t h o f t h e s e n t e n c e as they were t o be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y . ( B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-650.. A copy o f the judgment o f the c o u r t of A p p e a l a p p e a r s i n t h e s e p a p e r s ) . 1 3 S t a r , S e p t . 9, 1933. See a l s o " P o l i t i c a l Changes by F o r c e and V i o l e n c e " , C a n adian P r o b l e m s , pp. 307-319. 1 4 T ) p h a r p s , 1933, V o l . 2, p. 2189. 1 5 G l o b e , November 14, 1931. 16 Teleg r a m , November 13, 1931. ^"^Bennett P a p e r s , C-150, Document #54771. I t must be n o t e d , however, t h a t t h e a p p e a l s from t h e Orange l o d g e s i n t h e B e n n e t t P a p e r s do n o t come from T o r o n t o , i t s e l f . A g a i n one must n o t e an a m b i g u i t y a l r e a d y n o t e d i n C h a p t e r F o u r . Many o f t h e t r a d e u n i o n i s t s o f the T o r o n t o D i s t r i c t L a b o r 138 C o u n c i l were members o f the Orange Lodge, y e t t h e y opposed S e c t i o n 98. 18 F i n a n c i a l P o s t , November 21, 1931. S i m i l a r l y , E.A. B r o w n e l l , v i c e - p r e s i d e n t o f the W e s t e r n A s s u r a n c e Co. i n T o r o n t o , w r o t e t o B e n n e t t : . . . . I n newer c o u n t r i e s s u c h as Canada and A u s t r a l i a , the " o n l y e f f e c t i v e way of d e a l i n g w i t h t h e s e Communists i s by s t a m p i n g on them h a r d from t h e o u t s e t , and I r e p e a t t h a t A u s t r a l i a . . . . w o u l d n o t have such a v e r y s e r i o u s unemployment p r o b l e m on t h e i r hands a t p r e s e n t n o r such a d i f f i c u l t f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n , had t h e Communists been d e a l t w i t h f i r m l y from t h e o u t s e t . . . . ( B e n n e t t Papers,C-650, Document #92930, E.A. B r o w n e l l t o R.B. B e n n e t t , March 14, 1932.) 1 9 S t a r , F e b r u a r y 26, 1932. 20 " S t a r , F e b r u a r y 24, 1933. 21 See A r c h a m b a u l t , L a Menace Communiste f o r a r e p o r t on t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e R e p e a l C o n f e r e n c e i n T o r o n t o o f March, 1934. (pp. 4 1 - 5 0 ) . 22 C a n a d i a n L a b o r D e f e n d e r , November, 1931, A r e p o r t c l a i m e d t h a t $635.18 had been c o l l e c t e d from T o r o n t o a l o n e s i n c e the imprisonment o f t h e e i g h t i n November, 1931. 23 A r c h a m b a u l t , p. 42. The l i t e r a t u r e i n c l u d e d a r e p o r t on the t r i a l o f t h e Communists by a "Workers' J u r y " and p e t i t i o n s t o be f o r -warded t o t h e B e n n e t t government c a l l i n g f o r r e p e a l of S e c t i o n 98. P a p e r s s u c h as the S t a r and the C a n a d i a n Forum used the argument t h a t s u f f i c i e n t p r o t e c t i o n i n c r i m i n a l lawc a l r e a d y e x i s t e d a g a i n s t s e d i t i o n ; hence s e c t i o n 98 was u n n e c e s s a r y and o v e r - b e a r i n g . 139 25 W o r k e r s ' S o l i d a r i t y A g a i n s t F a s c i s m . (C.L.D.L., 1933). The c o v e r o f t h e pamphlet o u t l i n e s t h e methods of a g i t a t i o n f o r r e p e a l o f S e c t i o n 98. 2 6 W o r k e r , March 12, 1932. 27 McNaught, p. 357. 28 C.C.F. R e c o r d s , P.A.C., Volume 41, G e n e r a l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e : O n t a r i o , 1932-40. 29 Among t h e groups i n T o r o n t o p r e s e n t i n g C.L. D. L. p e t i t i o n s f o r r e p e a l o f S e c t i o n 98 were t h e R u s s i a n B r a n c h of the C.L.D.L. , (40 members) P o l i s h W o r k e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n (75 members); M a c e d o n o - B u l g a r i a n E d u c a t i o n a l C l u b ; R u s s i a n Workers C l u b o f Maxim Gorky (52 members); A m e r i c a n -L i t h u a k i a L i t e r a r y A s s o c i a t i o n (80 members); F i n n i s h O r g a n i z a t i o n o f Canada, L o c a l #1. (470 members); U k r a n i a n L a b o r Temple A s s o c i a t i o n . ( B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-650, 1932). 30 R e p o r t o f the P r o c e e d i n g s o f the F i f t i e t h A n n u a l Convention o f  the T r a d e s and L a b o r Congress of Canada. ( T o r o n t o , 1934), p. 183. 3 l B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-650, Doc. #95446, March 23, 1932. "30 I n i t s R e p o r t of t h e R e p e a l C o n f e r e n c e i n T o r o n t o , 1934, the C. L. D. L. c l a i m e d the s u p p o r t of some a f f i l i a t e s o f the Trades and L a b o r C o n g r e s s . S i n c e numbers were r e c o r d e d o n l y on a n a t i o n - w i d e b a s i s ^ i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o d i s c o v e r i f any A.F. o f L. u n i o n s i n T o r o n t o s u p p o r t e d the C. L. D. L. 's demands. 140 33 L a b o r L e a d e r , November 27, 1931. 34 Board o f E v a n g e l i s m and S o c i a l S e r v i c e . E i g h t h A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1932. ( U n i t e d C hurch A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a C o l l e g e L i b r a r y , T o r o n t o ) p. 11. 35 New O u t l o o k , 1933, p. 487. So a l s o , t h e r e a r e l e t t e r s i n the B e n n e t t P a p e r s from U n i t e d Church c o n g r e g a t i o n s a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e y d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n l a i d on i s s u e d l i k e S e c t i o n 98 by c e r t a i n c o u n c i l s o f t h e U n i t e d C h u r c h . However, none of the l e t t e r s i n t h e p a p e r s examined came from T o r o n t o . 36 •' A r t h u r Meighen P a p e r s , P.A.C., f i l e " U n i t e d C h u r c h , March 3 1 , 1936. A. Meighen t o Rev. Dr. F. L a n g f o r d , T o r o n t o . 3 7 B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-650, Document #933826, November 2, 1934. S i m i l a r l y Rev. A. Sims o f T o r o n t o , w r i t i n g t o B e n n e t t from h i s head-q u a r t e r s f o r "Books and T r a c t s on S a l v a t i o n , P r o p h e c y , F a i t h , P r a y e r and t h e Overcoming L i f e " , c o n g r a t u l a t e d him "on t h e n o b l e s t a n d you a r e t a k i n g i n r e g a r d t o R u s s i a " and e n c l o s e d t h r e e o f h i s p u b l i c a t i o n s : The Red T e r r o r i n R u s s i a - A V i v i d Example o f What i s Coming When S a t a n ' s  M a s t e r p r e d a t o r S h a l l R e i g n o v e r t h e W o r l d ; F i e n d i s h A t r o c i t i e s i n R u s s i a under i t s A t h e i s t i c , B o l s h e v i s t Government; The A w f u l P e r i l s o f B o l s h e v i s m . ( B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-650, Document #194017, * A. Sims t o R.B. B e n n e t t , F e b r u a r y 3, 1933). I t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e from t h e Canadian census r e p o r t s how many f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s t h e r e were i n T o r o n t o i n t h e 1930's. I t would a p p e a r , however t h a t t h e i r i n f l u e n c e was o f some s i g n i f i c a n c e . 141 The Canadian Forum v i e w e d i t as s u c h , and commented upon i t i n r e l a t i o n t o the p o l i c y o f t h e P o l i c e Commission: The Commission r e p r e s e n t s an a l l i a n c e o f the m i l i t a r i s t i c and r e l i g i o u s f u n d a m e n t a l i s t b o d i e s w h i c h a r e s t r o n g l y e n t r e n c h e d i n O n t a r i o . . . . J u d g e C o a t s w o r t h i s a s t r o n g s u p p o r t e r of t h e C a n a d i a n C h r i s t i a n C r u s a d e , an o r d e r d e v o t e d t o the d e f e n c e o f Fundamentalism and the e r a d i c a t i o n of a t h e i s m and Communism. C a n a d i a n Forum ^ ( F e b r u a r y 1931) . 38 e.g. t h e Communists and t h e C.C.F.,J.S. Woodsworth w r o t e t o B. R o b i n s o n o f T o r o n t o i n 1933: ....Our e x p e r i e n c e i n Canada...has been a g a i n s t a n y t h i n g l i k e c o o p e r a t i o n . . . . T h e Communist P a r t y i s out f o r i t s own ends, and w i l l use one t o t h e l i m i t , and then r u t h l e s s l y t u r n and denounce him." (C.C.F. R e c o r d s , V o l . 4L,\J.S. Woodsworth t o B. R o b i n s o n , A p r i l 19, 1 9 3 3 ) . The r a d i c a l and c o n s e r v a t i v e wings o f l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s l i k e the T o r o n t o D i s t r i c t L a b o r C o u n c i l a l s o e x p e r i e n c e d c o n t r o v e r s y . ( I n t e r -v i e w w i t h D. A r c h e r , J u l y 3, 1 9 6 8 ) . 142 Chapter VI 1 A.E. Smith, All My Life (Toronto: Progress Books, 1949), p. 176. 2 Star. March 6, 1934. A.E. Smith, was one of the most active Communist workers of the period. He lived in Toronto during the Depression, but seems to have travelled a great deal, coordinating the Repeal Conferences and activities of the C.L.D.L. , and organizing, workers'delegations, to present petitions to the Bennett government. 3 The Progressive Arts Club was a Communist front organization similar to the Young Communist League. For an account of its literary activities see E. Cecil-Smith, "The Workers' Theatre in Canada", Canadian Forum, November, 1933. 4 The Board of Police Commissioners asserted that there had been no communication with Bennett before banning the play. The Star, how-ever^ asserted, that R.CM.P. operators within the city had brought the play to the attention of Mr. Bennett who, upon reading i t , expressed surprise that the city would tolerate its presentation (March 9, 1934). The following Memorandum is to be found in the Bennett Papers: I enclose herewith your f i l e in connection with the play "Eight Men Speak". Mr. Bennett has read the f i l e and thinks that appropriate action should be taken through the Attorney-General of the Province to protect society against these attacks. (Bennett Papers, C-650, Secretary A.E. Millar to Mathews, January 2, 1934). 5 ' Star, January 31, 1934. 1A3 "^Smith was indicted under Section 132 of the Criminal Code for u t t e r i n g words with seditious i n t e n t i o n . Certain members of the C.L.D.L. l a t e r quite u n f a i r l y l a i d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r Smith's indictment at the feet of the Labor members of Parliament l i k e J.S. Woodsworth and A.A. Heaps, on the grounds that these men had continually asserted that Section 98 was unnecessary because s u f f i c i e n t protection against s e d i t i o n already existed i n the Canadian Criminal Code. 7 S t a r , March 7, 1934. 8 G. Caplan, "The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation i n Ontario, 1932-45". (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1961), p. 107. Smith l a t e r asserted: ....hardly was the ink dry on the indictment than the workers' organizations across Canada roused themselves in t o a c t i o n . 9 S t a r , February 19, 1934. 10 I b i d . , March 8, 1934. * ^ "Telegram, February 6, 1934. 12 Star, March 10, 1934. 1 3Worker, February 10, 1934. 14 Star, February 17, 1934. "^e.g. Members of the St. Paul's, Danforth, and S a c k v i l l e C.C.F. 144 C l u b s ; t h e N a t i o n a l L a b o r C o u n c i l ; the S o c i a l i s t P a r t y o f Canada; E a s t Y o r k W o r k e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n ; S o u t h F a i r b a n k s R a t e p a y e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n . (Worker. F e b r u a r y 24, 1934.) 1 6 S t a r , F e b r u a r y 16, 1934. L o c . e x t . 18 I t must be n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was a good d e a l of " h e a t e d d e b a t e " as t o t h e p o l i c y t o be a d o p t e d o v e r t h e S m i t h t r i a l . 19 The N a t i o n a l C.C.F. P a r t y c o n s i s t e d o f a f e d e r a t i o n o f t h e l a r g e l y autonomous p r o v i n c i a l p a r t i e s . I n O n t a r i o , u n t i l 1934, t h e C.C.F. p a r t y was composed of t h r e e s e c t i o n s : The L a b o r C o n f e r e n c e composed of p r e - e x i s t e n t s o c i a l i s t and l a b o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , ( e . g . S o c i a l i s t P a r t y o f Canada u n i t s , Independent L a b o r P a r t y u n i t s , E a s t Y o r k W o r k e r s ' A s s o c i a t i o n ) ; t h e U n i t e d Farmers o f O n t a r i o ; and t h e C l u b S e c t i o n , an a r t i f i c i a l l y c r e a t e d group composed p r i m a r i l y o f u r b a n m i d d l e - c l a s s members. ( C a p l a n , C h a p t e r s I I and I I I ) . 20 S t a r , F e b r u a r y 15, 1934. C a p l a n , p. 109. 22 I b i d . , p. 116. The P r o v i n c i a l 6 o u n c i l a d o p t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s o l u t i o n s : That t h i s C o u n c i l r u l e s t h a t no p r o t e s t m e e t i n g s be h e l d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e m a t t e r of A.E. S m i t h u n t i l Mr. J.S. Woodsworth has g i v e n h i s a d v i s e . . . . Whereas, under S e c t i o n 98 o r some o t h e r S e c t i o n o f t h e C r i m i n a l Code e v e r y p r e t e x t i s made t o i n d i c t members of t h e w o r k i n g -c l a s s , w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t any s p e a k e r may be l i a b l e t o i n d i c t m e n t f o r c r i t i c i s m o f the government o r o f government o f f i c i a l s . . . . T h i s C o u n c i l t h e r e f o r e s t r o n g l y p r o t e s t s a g a i n s t t h i s new i n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e r i g h t s o f c i t i z e n s . (C. C. F. R e c o r d s , V o l . 41) 23 A. M a c p h a i l P a p e r s , P.A.C., V o l . 1 ( C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ) , E. P h i l p o t t t o A. M a c p h a i l , F e b r u a r y 19, 1934. P h i l p o t t was soon t o r e j o i n t he r a n k s o f t h e L i b e r a l p a r t y . 24 C.C.F. R e c o r d s , V o l . 41, E. P h i l p o t t t o J.S. Woodsworth, F e b r u a r y 19, 1934. 25 C a p l a n , p. 129. 2 ^ . D . S t e w a r t and D. F r e n c h , A s k No Q u a r t e r : A B i o g r a p h y o f  Agnes M a c p h a i l ( T o r o n t o : Longmans, Green and Co., 1959), p. 176. 2 7 C . C . F . R e c o r d s , V o l . 41, F e b r u a r y 19, 1934. 28 C a p l a n , p. 118. 29 C.C.F. R e c o r d s , V o l . 41, D.M. L e B o u r d a i s t o J . S . Woodsworth, March 14, 1934. On t h e same o c c a s i o n , P h i l p o t t ' s r e s i g n a t i o n was a c c e p t e d . C a p l a n , p. 135. I n l a r g e measure, the i s s u e o f " c i v i l l i b e r t i e s " was i n t e r p r e t e d as t h e supreme q u e s t i o n because i t r e p r e s e n t e d , h e r e , an a s p e c t o f t h e c l a s s s t r u g g l e . 146 3 1Star, March 12, 1934. On the other hand A. Mould of the Labor Conference pointed out the danger of taking too moderate a stand: Where we f a l l too often is in letting them /the Communists/ steal what should be our thunder. . .1 hope we are not going to f a l l into the error of bringing the iron heel of discipline down too hard or too often on those workers who get hot at injustice unless we are also prepared to discipline those who are so cold that they almost carry Tory icicles. (C.C.F. Records, Vol. 41, A. Mould to J. S. Woodsworth, February 23, 1934). 32m fact, the U.F.O. withdrew of its own accord before Woodsworth*s decision to suspend the Provincial Council. Hence i t left the Labor and Club section Executive in complete deadlock. However, G. Caplan has pointed out that the Smith episode served but to bring matters to a final crisis. There had always been friction among the three sections of the party. /j[n 1932/, T n e Provincial Council settled down to a solid nine months of existence characterized by mutual distrust, suspicion and bickering. The Labor representatives regarded the Club members as insincere opportunists. . . . The Club representatives considered themselves the elite of the Council . . . . (Caplan, p. 51). Of the U.F.O. Section one Ontario Labor leader wrote to Angus Maclnnis: The U.F.O. had been stampeded into the C.C.F. largely by Agnes Macphail and there got scared of Socialism. . . . (Angus Maclnnis Papers, Special Collections: The University of British Columbia Library, Box 30.2, July 24, 1934.) 33Globe, July 6, 1935. 3^The Relief Camps, established to provide Work for the single unemployed, and maintained by the Department of National Defence, had 147 been a s u b j e c t o f b i t t e r c o n t r o v e r s y b o t h i n s i d e and o u t s i d e P a r l i a m e n t . A l t h o u g h t h e p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e camps were f a i r l y r e s p e c t a b l e , the f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e adequate f a c i l i t i e s f o r r e c r e a t i o n , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e i r i s o l a t i o n i n u n p o p u l a t e d a r e a s o f t h e c o u n t r y , c r e a t e d s e v e r e d e m o r a l i z i n g e f f e c t s f o r t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e camp w o r k e r s . P l a c i n g t h e camps under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Department o f " N a t i o n a l Defence was a l s o c o n s i d e r e d an a f f r o n t t o t h e w o r k e r s . 35 A R o y a l Commission s e t up by t h e government of Saskatchewan t o . i n v e s t i g a t e t h e o u t b r e a k o f v i o l e n c e i n R e g i n a l a t e r p l a c e d t h e onus j ' ; o f g u i l t a t t h e f e e t o f the W. U. L. and i t s o r g a n i z e r , A. Evans. The Commission, however, found t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f s t r i k e r s " c a l l f o r s y m p a t h e t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n " s i n c e t h e camps " a r e i n r e a l i t y a t r a g i c e x p e r i e n c e f o r many of the men who a r e found i n them..." ( R e g i n a R i o t  I n q u i r y Commission, 1935, pp. 11-32. As quoted i n M. P e l t , p. 1 2 6 ) . 36 The d e l e g a t i o n o f S t r i k e r s was l e d by t h e Communist A r t h u r Evans. The Ottawa C o n f e r e n c e on June 2 2 . . . . d e g e n e r a t e d i n t o a s h o u t i n g match between t h e P r i m e M i n i s t e r and A r t h u r E v a n s , t h e s t r i k e l e a d e r . Mr. B e n n e t t c a l l e d Evans a t h i e f , and Evans c a l l e d t h e P r i m e M i n i s t e r a l i a r . . . . Mr. B e n n e t t r e j e c t e d a l l o f t h e demands of t h e s t r i k e r s w i t h l e s s t h a n a s h r e d o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ( J . G r a y , The W i n t e r Y e a r s , ( T o r o n t o : M a c M i l l a n o f Canada),1966, p. 1 5 5 ) . B e n n e t t p r o d u c e d t h e p r i s o n r e c o r d o f A. Evans, a W.U.L. o r g a n i z e r , and he a c c u s e d t h e o t h e r seven o f n o t h a v i n g been b o r n i n Canada. ( P e l t , p l 2 1 - 2 ) . 148 37 B e n n e t t and G u t h r i e , t h e M i n i s t e r o f J u s t i c e , l a t e r d e n i e d i n the House o f Commons t h a t s u c h an o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l had been p a s s e d . ( J u l y 31, 1935). However, i n t h e immediate a f t e r m a t h o f t h e r i o t , a l l the p a p e r s i n T o r o n t o b e l i e v e d t h a t i t had been p a s s e d . fSee S t a r , J u l y 2, 1935) O Q S t a r . J u l y 8, 1935. 3 9 G l o b e , J u l y 2, 1935. 40 Telegram. June 26, 1935. The M a i l and Empire r e a c t e d i n a s i m i l a r manner: ...The bounden d u t y o f e v e r y man and woman i n t h e c o u n t r y i s t o u p h o l d t h e hands o f the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n m a i n t a i n i n g law and o r d e E . . . A l l t h e p u b l i c has t o do i s t o s t a n d q u i e t l y b e h i n d t h e government o f the day. u n t i l t he s p o r a d i c movements from t h e camps under Red a g i t a t o r s become a t h i n g o f the p a s t . ( J u l y 2, 1935). The S t a r , however, was opposed t o t h e government's p r e c i p i t a t e p o l i c y , a s was t h e e n t i r e L i b e r a l p a r t y , though i t i s t o be n o t e d t h a t t h e b a s i s o f K i n g ' s condemnation o f C o n s e r v a t i v e p o l i c y l a y i n t h e i n t e r -f e r e n c e w i t h t he powers o f the p r o v i n c e o f Saskatchewan more th a n i n B e n n e t t ' s e x c e s s i v e use of f o r c e . 4 1 W o r k e r , J u l y 3, 1935. 4 2 S t a r , J u l y 5, 1935. Lab o r L e a d e r , A u g u s t 2, 1935. 149 44 S t a r , J u l y 2, 1935. 4 5 I b i d . , J u l y 3, 1935. 46 Such o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n c l u d e d t he C.C.F., the C o o p e r a t i v e Common-w e a l t h Y o u t h Movement, t h e Communist P a r t y , t h e Young Communist League, The C a n a d i a n League a g a i n s t War and F a s c i s m , t h e Independent L a b o r P a r t ^ t h e L a b o r P a r t y o f O n t a r i o , t h e Women's I n t e r n a t i o n a l League f o r Peace and Freedom, t h e S o c i a l i s t Party- o f Canada ( O n t a r i o S e c t i o n ) , t he O n t a r i o W o r k e r s ' F e d e r a t i o n , the N a t i o n a l Unemployment C o u n c i l , t h e C.L.D.L., t h e Wor k e r s ' U n i t y League, the League f o r S o c i a l R e c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e - F e l l o w -s h i p o f R e c o n c i l i a t i o n . A.A. MacLeod, c h a i r m a n o f the Canadian League a g a i n s t War and F a s c i s m , a c t e d as chairman o f t h e C i t i z e n s ' Committee. 4 7 S t a r , J u l y 9, 1935. 48 Worker, J u l y 9, 1935. 49 M a c l n n i s P a p e r s , Box 30.2, G. S p r y t o A. M a c l n n i s , June 25, 1935. 5°Star, J u l y 11, 1935. 5 1 S t a r , J u l y 10-16, 1935. 150 C h a p t e r V I I 1 ' * I n commenting on an a d d r e s s , "A Tour i n S o v i e t R u s s i a by D r . L.F. B a r k e r b e f o r e t h e C a n a d i a n C l u b of T o r o n t o i n 1932, A r t h u r Meighen a s s e r t e d : I do n o t t h i n k you c o u l d have chosen a s u b j e c t w h i c h g r i p s t h e p e o p l e o f t h i s c o u n t r y . . . m o r e than an a n a l y s i s . . . o f t h e g r e a t e s t economic and g o v e r n m e n t a l e x p e r i m e n t i n the h i s t o r y o f the w o r l d . "A Tour i n S o v i e t R u s s i a " , pp. 289-296, p. 295. A d d r e s s e s - t h e C a n adian  C l u b o f T o r o n t o 1931-1932. 2 A. B a l a w y d e r , " C a n a d i a n - S o v i e t R e l a t i o n s 1920-1935", ( U n p u b l i s h e d Phd, t h e s i s , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , 1966), p. 50. 3 I n 1924, Canada had f o l l o w e d B r i t a i n , under i t s L a b o r Government, i n t h e de j u r e r e c o g n i t i o n o f S o v i e t R u s s i a ; i n 1927, hovjever, a d i p l o -m a t i c r u p t u r e had o c c u r r e d between R u s s i a and B r i t a i n , and c o n s e q u e n t l y between R u s s i a and Canada, c h i e f l y because of a l l e g a t i o n s o f S o v i e t e s p i o n a g e a c t i v i t y w i t h i n B r i t a i n . Though B r i t a i n r e s t o r e d f u l l d i p l o -m a t i c r e l a t i o n s w i t h R u s s i a i n 1929, Canada r e f u s e d t o f o l l o w i n B r i t a i n ' s f o o t s t e p s . Hence, r e l a t i o n s between R u s s i a and Canada i n t h e p e r i o d under e x a m i n a t i o n were c a r r i e d out on a de f a c t o b a s i s . (A. B a l a w y d e r , pp. 60-9 6 ) . 4 I n F e b r u a r y 1930, a t t h e S i x t h Plenum, t h e Communist P a r t y o f Canada i n d i c a t e d i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o l o o k t o Moscow and t h e Moscow-dominated C o m i n t e r n f o r g u i d a n c e and d i r e c t i o n . The r e s o l u t i o n s of t h e 151 S i x t h C o m i n t e r n Congress were f i r m l y e n d o r s e d : a) an end was d e c l a r e d t o the d o c t r i n e o f " e x c e p t i o n a l i s m " , and the "Canadian b o u r g e o i s i e " were t o be r e g a r d e d h e n c e f o r t h as the main enemies o f the w o r k i n g c l a s s ; b) an end was d e c l a r e d t o t h e " u n i t e d f r o n t " w i t h t he r e f o r m i s t C a n a d i a n L a b o r P a r t y ; c ) c o n c r e t e s t e p s were t o be ta k e n towards the B o l s h e v i z a t i o n o f the p a r t y and t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f the p r i n c i p l e o f " d e m o c r a t i c c e n t r a -l i s m " . The T r o t s k y i t e and L o v e s t o n i t e wings o f the Canadian Communist P a r t y , i n c l u d i n g J . MacDonald, W. Madfarilty, M. Buhay, and M. S p e c t o r , were e x p e l l e d and Timothy Buck, as t h e l e a d e r o f the S t a l i n i s t w i n g , became s e c r e t a r y o f t h e Ca n a d i a n p a r t y . ( A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f O n t a r i o : Communist P a r t y o f Canada, Box 8, E n v e l o p e 8, F e b r u a r y , 1930.) The Communist P a r t y o f Canada was, i n f a c t , o n l y a s m a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n . A pamphlet Communism i n Canada by S u p e r i n t e n d e n t F . J . Mead o f t h e R. C M . P. a s s e r t e d t h a t " i t s membership i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7,000, a l l o f whom l o o k t o the U.S. S.R. as t h e i r f a t h e r l a n d . . . " ( J . S . Woodsworth P a p e r s ) . However, the r e p o r t o f the N a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n Chairman o f t h e Commun-i s t P a r t y o f Canada a s s e r t e d , i n - M a r c h 1931, t h a t . . . o n l y a b o u t 1300 members were p a y i n g dues i n t o t h e P a r t y w h i l s t o f f i c i a l l y t h e c e n t r e was r e p o r t i n g o v e r 4000 members. A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f O n t a r i o : C ommunist P a r t y o f Canada, Box 4, E n v e l o p e 40, N a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n Chairman t o Comrade V a s i l i e v , March 25, 1931. ^ C e r t a i n o f t h e S t a r ' s c o r r e s p o n d e n t s v i s i t e d R u s s i a i n an at t e m p t t o o b t a i n a c l e a r p i c t u r e o f t h e f a c t s . I n 1929 ? Henry Somer-v i l l e , t h e S t a r ' s . r e s i d e n t c o r r e s p o n d e n t i n London and l a t e r t h e e d i t o r 152 o f t h e C a t h o l i c R e g i s t e r , v i s i t e d R u s s i a , but few o f h i s a r t i c l e s were p u b l i s h e d when i t became c l e a r t h a t he was d e t e r m i n e d t o "see no good, h e a r no good, and above a l l , w r i t e no good." ( H a r k n e s s , p. 2 9 2 ) . I n 1932, F r e d r i c k G r i f f i n v i s i t e d R u s s i a on b e h a l f o f t h e S t a r ; so a l s o , t h e S t a r u sed t h e a r t i c l e s o f P i e r r e van P a a s s e n , the G l o b e ' s c o r r e s p o n d e n t , when th e G l o b e r e f u s e d t o p u b l i s h h i s a r t i c l e s on the grounds t h a t ' h e had o b v i o u s l y f a l l e n v i c t i m t o Communist propaganda". ( H a r k n e s s , p. 2 9 8 ) . 6 C h a r l e s H. H u e s t i s was a U n i t e d Church m i n i s t e r , a S o c i a l i s t and a p a c i f i s t , who w r o t e two o r t h r e e t i m e s a week f o r t h e e d i t o r i a l page o f t h e S t a r . ( H a r k n e s s , p. 1 7 0 ) . 7 B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-150, Document 192220-2., Rev. C.H. H u e s t i s t o R.B. B e n n e t t , J u l y 25, 1931. 8 S t a r , J a n u a r y 16, 1931. 9 New O u t l o o k . March 29, 1933. ^ T h e Wickersham R e p o r t was t h e r e s u l t of t h e f i n d i n g s o f a Commission a p p o i n t e d i n 1931 by t h e A m e r i c a n Government t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e v i l , o f t h e use o f t h e t h i r d d egree i n p o l i c e f o r c e s . The Commis-s i o n f o u n d t h a t , i n most A m e r i c a n c i t i e s , s u s p e c t s were a r r e s t e d and, once under a r r e s t , were d e a l t w i t h as i f t h e y were g u i l t y . They were h e l d by one man and smashed i n the f a c e by the o t h e r , o r d e r e d t o c o n f e s s , b e a t e n i n t o u n c o n s c i o u s n e s s . . . d e p r i v e d of s l e e p u n t i l a d e s p a i r i n g man w o u l d a d m i t a n y t h i n g . ( S t a r , A p r i l 12, 1932). 153 Star, April 12, 1932. The Sentinel, in its commendation of Chief Draper, looked specifically to the American and not the British example—and did so in spite of its violent protestations of loyalty to the British Crown: . . . This city Toronto is willing to be labelled intolerant in its loyalty to the King. (November 14, 1929). Men who are unemployed sometimes become desperate and are an easy prey for those who would destroy the civilization that has taken over 2000 years to bring to its present standards . . . . Communists should everywhere be treated as they are in Toronto, and in a l l the cities in the United States. (November 28, 1929). ^Globe, January 8, 1931. i^Mail and Empire. August 22, 1929. The Mail and Empire was not entirely consistent in its attitude, however, for, in spite of its fear of the universal menace of Communism, i t could comment editorially: The world may with profit recall that Bolshevism is indigenous to Russia alone. . . . It is peculiar to Russia and to Russia alone; and as practised there now is not adaptable to any other country. (January 1, 1931). 1 4Globe, January 13, 1931. 15New Outlook. December 14, 1932, p. 1157. ^D. C. Masters, The Winnipeg General Strike (Toronto University of Toronto Press, 1950). 17Telegram. January 2 6 , 1931. Until 1919, Salem G. Bland was a professor of church history at Wesley (Methodist) College, Winnipeg, where-upon he was dismissed, because certain of the large financial contributors 154 t o the c o l l e g e o b j e c t e d t o h i s a t t i t u d e on s o c i a l q u e s t i o n s . He t h e n became p a s t o r o f Broadway M e t h o d i s t T a b e r n a c l e , T o r o n t o , but a m a j o r i t y o f t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n soon v o t e d t o a s k him t o l e a v e because " h i s p r e a c h i n g conduced t o l a w l e s s n e s s " . I n 1924, he began w r i t i n g f o r t h e S t a r Weekly on s o c i a l and r e l i g i o u s m a t t e r s , and, b e f o r e l o n g , he was w r i t i n g a column on t h e e d i t o r i a l page of t h e S t a r under t h e t i t l e o f "The O b s e r v e r " . ( H a r k n e s s , p. 1 6 9 ) . I n . r e s p o n s e t o t h e e d i t o r i a l i n t h e Telegram. B l a n d r e p l i e d t o t h e e d i t o r , * . . . . I was n o t i n W i n n i p e g d u r i n g the s t r i k e f o r two months b e f o r e , n o r more tha n a month a f t e r i t . . . . O f c o u r s e I am n o t a Communist a f t e r the R u s s i a n f a s h i o n n o r a f t e r any f a s h i o n w h i c h dreams o f a sudden and v i o l e n t s o c i a l t r a n s -f o r m a t i o n . (Salem B l a n d P a p e r s , V i c t o r i a C o l l e g e L i b r a r y , T o r o n t o , Salem B l a n d t o t h e " e d i t o r o f t h e T e l e g r a m " , J a n u a r y 27, 1931). o 9 . 18 Reverend Henry J o h n Cody was a p r o m i n e n t c i t i z e n o f T o r o n t o . I n 1899 he was a p p o i n t e d r e c t o r o f S t . P a u l ' s A n g l i c a n C h u r c h , T o r o n t o , and remained so u n t i l h i s r e s i g n a t i o n i n 1932. I n 1918, he was e l e c t e d t o t h e p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e f o r T o r o n t o N o r t h E a s t , and, from 1918 t o 1919, he s e r v e d as t h e M i n i s t e r o f E d u c a t i o n . He a l s o s e r v e d as Chairman o f t h e Board o f G o v e r n o r s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o u n t i l h i s a p p o i n t m e n t i n 1931 as P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y . 19 Cody P a p e r s , W i l l i a m G. M a c K i n d r e d t o Canon H.J. Cody, J a n u a r y 20, 1931. 155 20 T e l e g r a m , F e b r u a r y 24, 1932. The example o f t h e W i n n i p e g G e n e r a l S t r i k e a p p e ars c o n t i n u a l l y t h r o u g h o u t t h e p e r i o d i n t h e e d i t o r i a l pages o f t h e G l o b e , t h e T e l e g r a m , and t h e M a i l and E m p i r e . 2 INew O u t l o o k . J u l y 17, 1935. 22 G l o b e , J a n u a r y 17, 1931. 23 I b i d . , J a n u a r y 22, 1931. 24 B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-650, Document #95282, R.B. B e n n e t t t o A l e x a n d e r Lyon ( s e c r e t a r y ) , Amalgamated C a r p e n t e r s U n i o n of T o r o n t o , (A.C.C.L. ) , F e b r u a r y 25, 1932. Many o f t h e p e t i t i o n s f o r r e p e a l o f S e c t i o n 98 i n t h e B e n n e t t P a p e r s a r e from o r g a n i z a t i o n s o f t h e f o r e i g n - b o r n . Such groups from T o r o n t o i n c l u d e d the P o l i s h Workers A s s o c i a t i o n , t h e U k r a n i a n L a b o r Temple A s s o c i a t i o n , the R u s s i a n b r a n c h o f t h e C.L. D. L., t h e F i n n i s h O r g a n i z a t i o n o f Canada, L o c a l number one, t h e M a c e d o n o - B u l g a r i a n E d u c a t i o n a l C l u b , and t h e A m e r i c a n - L i t h u a n i a n W o r k e r s ' L i t e r a r y A s s o c i a -t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , t h e Communist P a r t y seems t o have been composed l a r g e l y o f i m m i g r a n t s . A c c o r d i n g t o the R e p o r t o f t h e S i x t h C o n v e n t i o n o f t h e  Communist P a r t y o f Canada ( 1 9 2 9 ) , . . . . n i n e t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e P a r t y membership i s c o n f i n e d t o t h r e e l a n g u a g e groups ( F i n n i s h , U k r a n i a n and J e w i s h ) . . . . T h e P a r t y s t i l l r emains l a r g e l y an i m m i g r a n t P a r t y o n l y p o o r l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e b a s i c s e c t i o n s o f the Canadian w o r k i n g c l a s s . A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f O n t a r i o : Communist P a r t y o f Canada. Box 5. R e p o r t  ....Canada, p. 12. The " f o r e i g n d a n g e r " argument such as B e n n e t t u s e d , however, was c l e a r l y c a r r i e d t o an extreme, f o r demands were b e i n g made 156 f o r t h e r e p e a l o f S e c t i o n 98 by B r i t i s h o r g a n i z a t i o n s as w e l l as f o r e i g n . M r s . E. M o r t o n , P r e s i d e n t o f t h e T o r o n t o Women's L a b o r League, w r o t e t o R.B. B e n n e t t : I am i n s t r u c t e d by o u r members composed o f a l l B r i t i s h women o f t h e above o r g a n i z a t i o n t o w r i t e you i n p r o t e s t o f A t t o r n e y P r i c e ' s a c t i o n i n o r d e r i n g the a r r e s t s o f members of t h e Communist P a r t y . . . . ( B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-650, Document #92721, Mrs. E. M o r t o n t o R.B. B e n n e t t , September 18, 1931). So a l s o , i f i t was t h e " f o r e i g n d a n g e r " t h a t was so g r e a t , one wonders why o r g a n i z a t i o n s s u c h as the F e l l o w s h i p o f R e c o n c i l i a t i o n and t h e C.C.F. ? b o t h t h o r o u g h l y B r i t i s h i n C o m p o s i t i o n , were p r e v e n t e d from m e e t i n g and bran d e d as d a n g e r o u s l y " c o m m u n i s t i c . " 25 G l o b e , A u g u s t 16, 1929. 26 S t a r , March 10, 1933. The S t a r ' s f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t e d an a c c u r a t e c a l c u l a t i o n . See D.B.S; S e v e n t h Census of Canada B u l l e t i n . # 3 0 . C a n a d i a n and o t h e r N a t i o n a l s , 1931, p. 4. 27 L o c . c i t . So a l s o t h e S t a r argued t h a t , i f t h e f o r e i g n - b o r n were r e a l l y t u r n i n g t o Communism, the f a u l t l a y w i t h C anadians them-s e l v e s , and i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t by t h e example o f t h e s u c c e s s a c h i e v e d by the O n t a r i o Department o f r E d u c a t i o n among t h e f o r e i g n - b o r n o f t h e n o r t h -e r n p a r t s o f t h e p r o v i n c e : . . . . B e f o r e t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e s c h o o l - c a r system t h e r e was s a i d t o be a good d e a l o f Communist l i t e r a t u r e c i r c u l a t i n g among t h e F i n n s . B u t now....the e d u c a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . . . . have d r i v e n Communism o f f t h e f i e l d . . . . A t l a s t , t h e s e s t r a n g e r s i n a new c o u n t r y have d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e new c o u n t r y t a k e s an i n t e r e s t i n them.... I n s t e a d o f c a l l i n g o u t t h e t r o o p s t o f i g h t f a l s e i d e a s i n t h e n o r t h , t h e O n t a r i o government c a l l e d o u t t h e s c h o o l m a s t e r s and a c o m p l e t e v i c t o r y has been won.... ( F e b r u a r y 25, 1931). 157 28 Former Mayor Wm. J . S t e w a r t a s s e r t e d t h a t no one was more a f f l i c t e d w i t h t h e "Red bogey" i n T o r o n t o t h a n was the C h i e f o f P o l i c e , B r i g a d i e r - G e n e r a l D e n n i s D r a p e r . ( I n t e r v i e w , J u l y 5, 1968). 29 Reverend ^Ernest Thomas was a U n i t e d Church m i n i s t e r and a f i e l d - s e c r e t a r y f o r the B o a r d o f E v a n g e l i s m and S o c i a l S e r v i c e o f t h e U n i t e d C h u r c h . 30 New O u t l o o k , F e b r u a r y 1931, p. 105. 3 1 W i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of the F i v e Y e a r P l a n i n O c t o b e r , 1928, R u s s i a began t o "dump" h e r product's on European and A m e r i c a n m a r k e t s . By September, 1930, R u s s i a n wheat was p o u r i n g i n t o t h e I t a l i a n and F r e n c h markets and s e l l i n g a t a r a t e f i v e p e r c e n t tower t h a n the r a t e o f o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , and the s i t u a t i o n was s i m i l a r w i t h c o a l . The R u s s i a n p o l i c y seems t o have r e s u l t e d from i t s d e s i r e t o o b t a i n t h e n e c e s s a r y c a s h c r e d i t s from i t s customers so as t o buy heavy m a c h i n e r y f o r t h e i m p l e n e n t a t i o n o f the F i v e Y e a r P l a n . W e s t e r n o b s e r v e r s were a l a r m e d a t t h e p r o s p e c t s of t h e r e - e n t r y o f S o v i e t goods i n t o w o r l d m a r k e t s ; i n f a c t , a memorandum on t h e s u b j e c t u n d e r t a k e n by the C a n a d i a n Government pronounced t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e R u s s i a n p o l i c y t o be i n j u r i o u s t o C a n a d i a n t r a d e . ( B a l a w y d e r , pp. 114-128.) 32 M a i l and E m p i r e , J a n u a r y 21, 1931. A s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e i s t o be n o t e d •s i n The S e n t i n e l : The w o r l d - w i d e d e p r e s s i o n . . . i s n o t a l t o g e t h e r due t o t h e dumping p o l i c y o f t h e R u s s i a n s , b u t i t i n t e n s i f i e d the d i s t r e s s i n g c o n -158 d i t i o n s t h a t e x i s t e verywhere. I t r e a c t s upon c o u n t r i e s l i k e Canada and t h e U . S . . . . t h a t were t h o u g h t t o be beyond t h e r e a c h of S o v i e t power. What the R u s s i a n s have f a i l e d t o a c c o m p l i s h by t h e i r c o s t l y propaganda methods, t h e y t h r e a t e n t o a c h i e v e by d e s t r o y i n g t h e m a r k e t s o f t h e w o r l d f o r p r o d u c i n g c o u n t r i e s . . . . (November 27, 1930). 33 By an o r d e r - i n - c o u n c i l , t h e B e n n e t t Government p l a c e d an embargo on S o v i e t " c o a l , woodpulp, pulpwood, lumber and t i m e r o f a l l k i n d s , a s b e s t o s and f u r s . " Canada was t h e f i r s t o f the w e s t e r n c o u n t r i e s t o impose a t r a d i n g ban on R u s s i a . ( B a l a w y d e r , p. 136.) 34 I t must be n o t e d , however, t h a t n o t a l l o f t h e p a p e r s , a f f l i c t e d w i t h t h e "Red bogey" c h e e r e d B e n n e t t ' s d e c i s i o n . F o r example, t h e F i n a n c i a l P o s t was n o t extreme i n t h e p r a i s e f o r t h e d e c i s i o n . The R u s s i a n t r a d e embargo d i d n o t p r o v i d e a remedy f o r t h e e x i s t i n g D e p r e s s i o n and, i n f a c t , i t p r o v e d t o be e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t t o e n f o r c e i n Canada; moreover, B e n n e t t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n a t t h e I m p e r i a l C o n f e r e n c e t o p r e v e n t B r i t a i n from c o n t i n u i n g t o t r a d e w i t h R u s s i a l e d o n l y t o i l l f e e l i n g s a g a i n s t Canada i n B r i t a i n . ( B a l a w y d e r , p. 1 5 8 ) . 35 S i m i l a r l y , t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n by such p a p e r s as t h e S t a r h o t t o r e g a r d R u s s i a as a menace had a b a s i s i n C a n a d i a n s e l f - i n t e r e s t , f o r t h e S t a r v i e w e d t h e q u e s t i o n of t r a d e w i t h R u s s i a i n a somewhat d i f f e r e n t l i g h t : R u s s i a i s a b i g c o u n t r y , c a r r y i n g on a b i g b u s i n e s s i n t h e w o r l d . Canada may p r o u d l y d e c l i n e t o s e l l t o R u s s i a , b u t She w i l l be p r e t t y much a l o n e i n t h e w o r l d i f she does. I f Canada r e f u s e s s t o s e l l a g r i c u l t u r a l implements t o h e r she w i l l n o t do w i t h o u t them, b u t w i l l buy them e l s e w h e r e o r middlemen w i l l buy p a r t o f t h e goods h e r e and s e l l them t o h e r . ( F e b r u a r y 28, 1931). 159 36 G l o b e , J a n u a r y 22, 1931. 37 I b i d . , A u g u s t 19, 1929. 3 8W.H. K e s t e r t o n , A H i s t o r y o f J o u r n a l i s m i n Canada. ( T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t L t d . , 1967), p. 89. 39 C a n a d i a n Forum, F e b r u a r y , 1931, p. 168. 40 S t a r , J u l y 6, 1935. 41 F o r example, i n 1935, t h e O n t a r i o C.C.F. newspaper, the New  Commonwealth, d e s c r i b e d t h e e l e c t i o n as "a f i g h t between t h o s e who s t a n d f o r c a p i t a l i s m and t h o s e who a r e opposed t o i t " . (as quoted i n W.D. Young's u n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t on the C.C.F. P a r t y , C h a p t e r 8, p. 4 ) . Such s l o g a n s were n o t chosen t o convey an i m p r e s s i o n o f m o d e r a t i o n . 4 2 B e n n e t t P a p e r s , C-650, Document #93391, A p r i l 8, 1933. 43 See t h e S t a r , September 9, 1933. The M a i l and Empire used c a p t i o n s s u c h as the f o l l o w i n g i n i t s e d i t o r i a l comments on t h e C.C.F.: "Moscow Tre n d o f C.C.F. i n B.C." ( O c t . 13, 1 9 3 3 ) ; "C.C.F. C a n d i d a t e s a r e m a r r i e d t o Communism" ( J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 3 4 ) ; "The O l d Love f o r Moscow S t i l l O p e r a t i v e " ( O c t o b e r 24, 1 9 3 3 ) ; "C.C.F. dogged by Communism as by O l d S i n " . (November 15, 1933). 44 M a c l n n i s P a p e r s , Box 30-2, G. S p r y t o A. M a c l n n e s , J u n e 25, 1935. 160 45 W.L.M. K i n g Papers, P.A.C., S e r i e s E o u r , Correspondence 1931, S i r W i l l i a m M u l o c k t o M a c k e n z i e K i n g , A p r i l 16, 1931. 46 I b i d . . K i n g t o M u l o c k , A p r i l 18, 1931. "* 7Woodsworth P a p e r s , G. Raymond Booth t o J.S. Woodsworth, June 1, 1931. 48 I n t h e f e d e r a l e l e c t i o n o f O c t o b e r , 1935, t h e r e were o n l y t h r e e Communist P a r t y c a n d i d a t e s i n T o r o n t o ; Sam S c a r l e t t , R o s e d a l e ; J.B. S a l s b u r g , S p a d i n a ; Norman F r e e d , T r i n i t y . A l t o g e t h e r , t h e number o f v o t e s t h e y v i e w e d was o n l y 4,961. ( S t a r , O c t o b e r 14, 1935). 49 A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l o f O n t a r i o : Communist P a r t y o f Canada, Box 8, E n v e l o p e 2. R e p o r t o f D i s t r i c t No. 3, March 5, 1931. 161 C h a p t e r V I I I *See C h a p t e r . I l l , above. 2 James Connor o f the T o r o n t o D i s t r i c t L a b o r C o u n c i l a s s e r t e d t h a t T o r o n t o f r e q u e n t l y had problems o v e r t h e h o l d i n g o f p u b l i c m e e t i n g s . ( M a i l and E m p i r e , J a n u a r y 22, 1931). On i>num@rous o c c a s i o n s d u r i n g t h e 1920's he a s s e r t e d , t h e T o r o n t o L a b o r P a r t y had been p r e v e n t e d from m e e t i n g . ( I n t e r v i e w w i t h P r o f e s s o r F.. U n d e r h i l l , June 18, 1968). 3 New O u t l o o k , 1932, p. 320. 4 A n n u a l R e p o r t of t h e Commissioner of F i n a n c e , 1931, p. 11. "*As quoted i n D e b a t e s , 1935, volume I I I , p. 2244. . The speech was d e l i v e r e d on November 9, 1932. 6 T e l e g r a m . F e b r u a r y 24, 1932. One need n o t assume from t h i s t h a t t h e Telegram was a f a s c i s t o r gan - o n l y t h a t i n the m i d s t o f d i s l o c a t i o n and d i s t r e s s , t h e Telegram saw " a u t h o r i t y " as t h e h i g h e s t v a l u e . The c a s e was s i m i l a r w i t h t h e M a i l and E m p i r e ! The r e a d e r s o f t h e M a i l & E m p i r e need n o t be a f r a i d . We a r e n o t g o i n g F a s c i s t though we m i g h t p r e f e r F a s c i s m t o t h e Moscow-bred program o f t h e C.C.F We do n o t f o r a moment t h i n k t h a t t h e form of g o v e r n -ment i n t r o d u c e d i n t o I t a l y by M u s s o l i n i would s u i t t h i s c o u i h t r y . . . . I t a l i a n c i t i z e n s h i p under I I Puce, who i s l e a d e r r a t h e r than d i c t a t o r , s t a n d s f o r the i d e a l of i n d i v i d u a l s e r v i c e t o the s t a t e . I t emphasizes" r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r a t h e r than p r i v i l e g e . ( J a n u a r y 11, 1934). 162 7 C a n a d i a n Forum, 1931, p. 444. ' g D e b a t e s , 1931, Volume I V , p. 4435. 9 Board o f E v e n g e l i s m and S o c i a l S e r v i c e , E i g h t h A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1932, p. 11. ^ F r o m 1932 t o 1934, a committee o f the B o a r d o f E v a n g e l i s m and S o c i a l S e r v i c e , c h a i r e d by S i r R o b e r t F a l c o n e r , t h e r e c e n t l y r e t i r e d P r e s i d e n t o f the U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , was p r e p a r i n g a document, C h r i s t i a n i z i n g t h e S o c i a l O r d e r , w h i c h c r i t i c i z e d t h e e x i s t i n g ^ c a p i t a l i s t s y s t e m , though i t o f f e r e d no p r e c i s e remedies f o r e x i s t i n g p r o b l e m s . The s t a t e m e n t was a c c e p t e d by t h e G e n e r a l C o u n c i l o f t h e U n i t e d Church i n 1934, and 21,000 c o p i e s were d i s t r i b u t e d f o r p u r p o s e s of d i s c u s s i o n . ( R e p o r t t o t h e Committee f o r " C h r i s t i a n i z i n g t h e S o c i a l O r d e r , 1935, U n i t e d Church A r c h i v e s , V i c t o r i a C o l l e g e ) . ^ I t i s e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e " E s t a b l i s h m e n t " i n any p r e c i s e t e r m s . What i s i m p l i e d i n t h i s c o r i t e x b i s the w e a l t h i e r p e o p l e of T o r o n t o who had l a r g e s t a k e s i n t h e f i n a n c i a l and c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y o f t h e c i t y . I n an e d i t o r i a l i n t h e S t a r , Salem B l a n d a c c u s e d the f i n a n c i a l magnates o f t h e c i t y o f b e i n g the r e a l s u p p o r t b e h i n d D r a p e r ' s p o l i c y , c h i e f l y because company owners i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , d e s i r i n g t o e s t a b l i s h b r a n c h e s i n T o r o n t o , wanted d e f i n i t e a s s u r a n c e t h a t T o r o n t o was a " s a f e " p l a c e t o i n v e s t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s . ( J u l y 10, 1932). However, i t must be n o t e d t h a t t h e whole of the w e a l t h y c l a s s i n T o r o n t o d i d n o t s u p p o r t a u t h o r i t y a t the expense o f l i b e r t y . F o r 163 e x a m p l e , J i . E . A t k i n s o n was an e x t r e m e l y w e a l t h y man; y e t he was f o r t h -r i g h t i n h i s o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e e x c e s s i v e use of a u t h o r i t y . S i m i l a r l y , J.M. M a c d o n e l l , P r e s i d e n t o f t h e N a t i o n a l T r u s t Company o f T o r o n t o , had i d e a s t h a t s c a r c e l y r e p r e s e n t e d h i s c l a s s i n t e r e s t , and r e f e r r e d t o h i m s e l f as a " F a b i a n S o c i a l i s t " . ( M r s . W.L. G r a n t C o r r e s p o n d e n c e , P.A.C., V o l . 42, W.L. G r a n t t o Maud Grant;,.undated.) 12 Woodsworth P a p e r s , f i l e 26, M a i l and Empire c l i p p i n g , J a n u a r y 24, 1931. 13 The S t a r and C a n a d i a n Forum f r e q u e n t l y commented upon t h e a p p a r e n t a p a t h y o f t h e unemployed. I n r e t r o s p e c t , P r o f e s s o r U n d e r h i l l c o n f i r m e d t h a t v i e w . ( I n t e r v i e w J u n e 18, 1968). *" 4 S o l Wiener G i n s b u r g , "What Unemployment does t o P e o p l e : A S t u d y i n A d j u s t m e n t t o C r i s i s " , A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , volume 99^ (November, 1942), pp. 444-5. The c a s e s t u d y was c o n d u c t e d i n New Y o r k d u r i n g t h e D e p r e s s i o n and t h r e e d i s t i n c t e t h n i c groups were s t u d i e d -I r i s h C a t h o l i c s , Jews, A n g l o - S a x o n P r o t e s t a n t s - t o t e s t whether r a c i a l -c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e d a d j u s t m e n t t o unemployment. I t would seem v a l i d t o a p p l y t h o s e c o n c l u s i o n s t o T o r o n t o , a s i m i l a r u r b a n c e n t r e c o n t a i n i n g l a r g e numbers o f t h e t h r e e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s . ''""'it i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t p r e c i s e l y t h e o p p o s i t e r e a c t i o n was e x p e c t e d b o t h by t h o s e who f a v o r e d a more l i b e r a l p o l i c y and t h o s e whose sym p a t h i e s l a y on the s i d e o f a u t h o r i t y . Numerous l e t t e r s b o t h 164 i n the newspapers and i n p r i v a t e c o l l e c t i o n s , from t h e 1930's, r e f e r t o t h e a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e r a d i c a l i z a t i o n o f t h e masses, but the v o t i n g r e s u l t s f a i l e d t o r e f l e c t t h i s . 16 Leo Z a k u t a i n A Becalmed P r o t e s t Movement: A S t u d y o f Change  i n the C.C.F. ( P u b l i s h e d D i s s e r t a t i o n f o r D o c t o r a t e o f P h i l o s o p h y , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , 1 961), has i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t t h e l e a d e r -s h i p i n T o r o n t o o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n s u c h as t h e C.C.F., t h a t f r e q u e n t l y t o o k a s t r o n g s t a n d on an i s s u e i n v o l v i n g c i v i l l i b e r t i e s , was composed o f " m i d d l e - c l a s s , A n g l o - S a x o n P r o t e s t a n t s , and n o t members o f t h e l o w e r c l a s s ' , ( p . 7 1 ) . I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e Communist p a r t y found i t s g r e a t e s t r e s p o n s e among the f o r e i g n - b o r n . I t s membership, however, was m i n u t e , and i t s l e a d e r s ( e . g . Tim Buck, A.E. S m i t h , ) were educated men who d i d n o t come from the l o w e r c l a s s e s ; moreover, many o f t h e Communist l e a d e r s t h e m s e l v e s were n o t f o r e i g n - b o r n . " ^ I n t e r v i e w w i t h P r o f e s s o r F. U n d e r h i l l . ( J u n e 18, 1968). 18 The Churchmen were p r i m a r i l y from the U n i t e d Church: e.g. Salem B l a n d , C h a r l e s H. H u e s t i s , Ben Spence, E r n e s t Thomas. 19 F o r example, the C.C.F., C a n a d i a n Forum, . S i a i , Board o f E v e n g e i i s m and S o c i a l S e r v i c e . 20 S t a r , September 12, 1933. 21 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h i s s t r a i n o f a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m 165 i n Toronto in spite of its protestations of its British character. Professor Underhill asserted that in taking a stand on public issues, the professors were consciously following the accepted British traditions of Oxford and Cambridge where professors were intensely involved in issues of public interest. 22star, January 20, 1931. 23Mail and Empire, October 21, 1933. Sionilarly the Financial Post commented on the activities of certain professors: . . . . Long ago men on the l i t t l e red school house. . .believed in thrift.. . . They thought the government ought to mind its own affairs and not meddle in business. They believed that, at a time like the present, the best contribution a government could make was to lower taxes. . . . Wouldn't i t be a shocking thing i f , some of these days,the people who get their philosophy out of the l i t t l e red school house where to turn on the whole bunch of philosophers of the big Red colleges and throw.rthem out? (December 16, 1933). A. Corry has noted that the widening of the scope of govern-ment activity was slower in America than in Britain: Towards the end of the nineteenth century with the closing of the frontier and the rapid pace of industrialization, the forces a l -ready at work in Britain began to make themselves felt in America. ("Changes in the Functions of Government," Canadian Historical  Association Report, 1945, p. 17.) The First World War produced an impact on the scope of government activity in Canada: The new activities undertaken by the federal government under the stress of war. . .increased the knowledge of the federal govern-ment about the social and economic structure of the country. . . . Canadians as a people became acquainted with the idea of government regulation of business and with the concept, technique, and philosophy of the social services. These factors have a great deal to do with the modifications of nineteenth century individualistic philosophy. . . . (The Growth of Government Activities 1914-1921," Canadian Historical. Association Report, 1940, p. 73. Corry further noted, however, that, despite the experiences of the First World War, the upward trend of government activities was much slower in Canada than in Britain until the onset of the Great Depression. ("Changes in the Function of Government," p. 17). 166 25 As quoted i n the Woodsworth Papers, February, 1933. 26 Canadian Forum, March 1931, p. 211. 27 "Address d e l i v e r e d by the Right Honourable S i r W i l l i a m Mulock ... on the occasion of h i s n i n e t i e t h b i r t h d a y , " The Canadian Bar Review, volume 12, 1934, p. 38. Mulock 1s speech r e f l e c t e d an extremely cl o s e reading of the Right Honourable Lord Hewart of Bury's The New Despotism (London: Ernest Benn L t d . , 1929). In the a r t i c l e s and addresses of the Canadian Bar Review and the Proceedings of the Canadian Bar A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the years under examination, one notes i n the law p r o f e s s i o n an intense concern-ovsr the r e s p e c t i v e p o s i t i o n of the courts and the emerging governmental a d m i n i s t r a t i v e bodies. See, f o r example, the address by N.W. Rowell, Minutes of the Proceedings of the Canadian Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , 1934, pp. 41-48. 28 Globe, January 20, 1934. 29 King Papers, Correspondence 1934, W.L.M. King to S i r W. Mulock, February 9, 1934. 30 I b i d . , W.L.M King to S i r W. Mulock, March 24, 1934. King was r e f e r r i n g to the proposed Marketing B i l l of the Conservative Government. 167 In an a r t i c l e i n the Canadian Forum, Professor U n d e r h i l l presented what he regarded as the t y p i c a l Canadian a t t i t u d e toward the question of government i n t e r v e n t i o n : The ideas of the E n g l i s h L i b e r a l and Labor Leaders.... concerning the part which s t a t e organs should play i n the guidance and c o n t r o l of economic a c t i v i t i e s are simply Bolshevism to the normal North American. . ... He_ takes h i s l i f e i n h i s hands who dares to h i n t that l a i s s e z - f a i r e i s not the basic p r i n c i p l e on which the universe i s constructed, but i s only a conveni-ent formula which was devised and summed up the d e s i r e s of the dominant economic c l a s s e s at the beginning of the nineteenth century. ("Radicalism i n Canada", May 17, 1929, p. 274) An examination of the e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y of the F i n a n c i a l Post makes one t h i n k that perhaps Professor U n d e r b i l l ' s remarks were not e n t i r e l y exaggeration: The question before the world today i s whether or not i t should exchange i n d i v i d u a l l i b e r t y f o r something which those who propose the change describe as economic s e c u r i t y . The question i s not academic. The challenge of the European experiment i s before us and has i n f l u e n c e d governments i n both United States and Canada.... In Canada, proposals that we should take l i b e r t y away from the i n d i v i d u a l and confer more power upon the s t a t e are made, d a i l y by would-be . leaders of opinion. ( F i n a n c i a l Post, J u l y 7, 1934). 168 Chapter IX ^Canadian Labor Defender, May, 1933. 2 I b i d . , June 30, 1931. 3 Workers S o l i d a r i t y against "Fascism (C.L.D.L., 1933). What the Communist Party proposed to b u i l d i n place of c a p i t a l i s t oppression i s not e n t i r e l y c l e a r S o v i e t Canada w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h the triumph of the Canadian workers and t o i l i n g farmers....It w i l l be a d i c t a t o r s h i p against the cou n t e r - r e v o l u t i o n a r y attempts of the bourgeoisie to re g a i n power. I t w i l l be the working c l a s s organized as the r u l i n g c l a s s to b u i l d S o c i a l i s m . . . . " Maclnnis C o l l e c t i o n , Box 30, G. P i e r c e , S o c i a l i s m and the C.C.F. (n.p., 1934). 4 Woodsworth Papers, Beckie Buhay to J.S. Woodsworth, May 19, 1933. ~*&s quoted i n an unpublished manuscript on the C.C.F. party by W.D. Young, Chapter 8, p. 7. That i s , through such means as mass meetings of p r o t e s t . This was the c h i e f form that the p r o t e s t of the C.C.F. against Chief Draper's p o l i c y took. 169 The Communists were e x t r e m e l y adept a t u s i n g m e e t i n g s f o r t h e i r own p u r p o s e s . J.S. Woodsworth w r o t e t o t h e Communist, Sam C a r r J ...The o v e r - t h r o w o f t h e C.C.F., r a t h e r t h a n o f c a p i t a l i s m , w ould seem t o be t h e main o b j e c t o f the Communist P a r t y of Canada. (Woodsworth P a p e r s , J.S. Woodsworth t o Sam C a r r , A p r i l 10, 1935). 8 Young, C h a p t e r 8, p. 2. 9 I b i d . , p. 11. 10 M a c l n n i s P a p e r s , Box 3Q-2, G. Spry t o A. M a c l n n i s , June 26, 1935. 11 The Worker, J u l y 11, 1935. 1 2 T h e C a n a d i a n b r a n c h o f t h e League h e l d i t s f i r s t C ongress i n T o r o n t o , O c t o b e r 6-7, 1934. Among the T o r o n t o members o f i t s N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l were Salem B l a n d , R a b b i N. E i s e n d r a t h , Dr. Rose Henderson, A.E. S m i t h , Alderman R. M o r r i s , M r s . E l i z a b e t h M o r t o n . I t s p l a n o f a c t i o n was the c r e a t i o n o f t h e " b r o a d e s t u n i t e d f r o n t , i r r e s p e c t i v e o f p o l i t i c a l , r e l i g i o u s o r n a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s " t o a g i t a t e f o r t h e w i d e s t s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t war and f a s c i s m . (Woodsworth P a p e r s , R e p o r t o f the  F i r s t C a n a d i a n Congress a g a i n s t War and F a s c i s m , p. 2 1 ) . R a b b i E i s e n d r a t h and Salem B l a n d a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e y approached the c o n g r e s s w i t h c e r t a i n m i s g i v i n g s , but t h e s e Kad-coinpletely b a n i s h e d by t h e s p l e n d i d s p i r i t shown t h r o u g h o u t . ( R e p o r t , p. 19.) 170' A.A. MacLeod was chairman of the Canadian League against War and Fascism, and i t was assumed that he was a Communist. He was a l e f t i s t i n t e l l e c t u a l , though not a member of the Communist Party u n t i l he ran as a candidate f o r the P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1943 as a Labor Pr o g r e s s i v e Party member. (Inte r v i e w w i t h A.A. MacLeod, J u l y 3, 1968). 14 C.C.F. Records, Volume 178, Report of the Ontario Convention, A p r i l 20, 1935. ^The Canadian Labor Defence League had been created i n 1925 to defend the " r i g h t s of the worker", but, by the 1930's i t , too, was thoroughly dominated by the Communists. 171 Chapter X cursory examination of the attitudes expressed on these issues by-the- newspapers of Toronto reveals a division of opinion similar to that already observed in the four-eases- that have been examined. 2For example, the professors who criticized Draper's methods and the excessive use of authority were not acting in a class interest. In his recollection of the depression years, Professor Underhill asserted that he and his colleagues suffered no hardships; on the contrary, they lived relatively well during the depression years. Hence they had l i t t l e need to criticize existing conditions from their particular class point of view. (Interview, June 18, 1968). 3 As quoted in an article by J. S. Woodsworth, "Canadian Obscuran-tists, " in J. S. Woodsworth Scrapbook, volume 32, 1916-1932. -^Indeed, i t is' easier to define what this conception was not, than what i t was. In effect, as a result of their recognition of the need for continual change, they were refusing to lay down any rigid lines of demarcation in their concept of Canadianism. In the broadest terms, however, their concept included a recognition of the existence and value of non-Anglo-Saxon elements in Canada and a readiness to give the govern-ment a more active role so as to curb the worst abuses of an individualistic, capitalistic system. 5por example, Draper's policy engendered considerable criticism in the 1930's. While i t is true that his policy continued throughout most 172 of the period under examination, nevertheless criticism did force public consideration of the assumptions of the policy, and, in fact, a considerable practical change in policy occurred in 1933 though the Board of Police Commissioners insisted that its policy was, and always had been "free speech within the law." A^n examination of the election campaign of October, 1935, as i t is revealed in the Telegram, the Globe, and the Star indicates that questions of " c i v i l liberties" such as the repeal of Section 98 played a very minor role. ^See P. H. Underhill, "Some Reflections on the Liberal Tradition in Canada," Canadian Historical Association Annual Report. 1946, pp. 5-17. °E. J. Urwick, "Freedom in Our Time," Papers and Proceedings  of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Sciencen Association. V (May, 1933), pp. 74-5. BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Manuscript Sources Public Archives of Canada: R. B. Bennett Papers. M. G. 26. Cooperative Commonwealth Federation Records, (Closed f i l e s ) W. L. Grant Papers. M. G. 27. W. L. M. King Papers. M. G. 26. J , Series 4. Agnes Macphail Papers. M. G. 27, C4. Arthur Meighen Papers, M. G. 26, I. J. S. Woodsworth Papers. M. G. 27, C7. Public Archives of Ontario: Attorney-General of Ontario: Communist Party of Canada. H. J. Cody Papers. G. S. Henry Papers. Mitchell F. Hepburn Papers, United Church Archives: Victoria College Library, Toronto: Salem G. Bland Papers t• The University of British Columbia Library: Angus Maclnnis Collection t Archives of the Toronto District Labor Council: Minutes of the National Labor Council, 1934-1935. B. Newspapers and Magazines  Canadian Forum. 1929-1935 Canadian Labor Defender. 1930-1935 Canadian Labor Press. 1930-1932, 1934-1935 Canadian Trade Unionist. 1930-1935 Commonwealth. (Vancouver, B. C.) 1933-1935 Financial Post. 1929-1935 The Globe. 1929-1935 Industrial Canada. 1929-1930 Labor Leader. 1931-1935 Maclean's. 1928-1935 Mail and Empire. 1929-1935 Monetary Times. 1931 Hew Commonwealth. October, 1934 New Outlook. 1929-1935 Saturday Night. 1929-1935 The Sentinel and Orange and Protestant Advocate. 1929-1930 The Telegram. 1929-1935 The Toronto Star. 1929-1935. Varsity. 1929-1931 The Worker. 1929-1935 Official Publications and Documents Addresses - the Canadian Club of Toronto. 1931-1932. Canada: Annual Heport on Labor Organization in Canada. (Ottawa 1931-19^5) : Canada: House of Commons Debates. 1931-1935 Canada: Seventh Census of Canada. 1931 Volume I Summary. Volume II Population by Areas. Volume VI Unemployment , Bulletin No. 7. Unemployment and Earnings among Wage  Earners in Toronto. Ontario. 175 Bulletin No. 10. Population by Religious Denomination Bulletin N. 22. Population by Racial Origin, Bulletin No. 30. Canadian and Other Nationals Bulletin No. 36. Gainfully Employed Ten Years of Age and over by Industry and Sex for Canada. . .and for Cities 30.000 and over. Bulletin N. 40. Population of the Municipal Wards of  the Cities of Toronto. Vancouver. . . Canadian Congress Journal. 1929-1935. City of Toronto: Annual Report of the Commissioner of Finance. Treasury Department. 1929-1935. House of Commons Special Committee on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Ottawa, I960. Law and Order in Canadian Democracy - Crime and Police Work in Canada. Ottawa: Queen*s Printer, 1952. The Labor Gazette. 1931-1935. Ottawa: King's Printer. Report of the Board of Evangelism and Social Service. 1932-1935. United Church Archives: Victoria College. Report of the Lieutenant-Governor's Committee on Housing Conditions  in Toronto. 1934. Report of the Proceedings of the Fiftieth Annual Convention of the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada. Toronto, 1934. D. Interviews Mr. R. A. Anderson, former Chief Inspector of the Toronto Police, Toronto, July 5, 1968. Mr. D. Archer, Toronto District Labor Council, Toronto, July 4, 1968. Professor G. P. de T. Glazebrook, University of Toronto, December 28, 1967, June 26, 1968. Mr. J. Levitt, University of Ottawa, June 18, 1968. Mr. A. A. MacLeod, Toronto, July 3, 1968. Mr. D. Stevenson, The Telegram. July 4, 1968. 176 Mr. W. J. Stewart, former Mayor of Toronto, July 5, 1968. Professor F. H. Underhill, Ottawa, June 18, 1968. E. Pamphlets Archambault, R. P. La Menace Communiste au Canada. (L'Ecole Sociale Populaire, 1935). Pamphlets from Special Collections: The University of British Columbia Library: Canada Through C.C.F. Glasses.(n.p.. n.d.). C.C.F.: Conservative and Liberal Objections Answered, (n.p., n.d.) Deported. (C.L.D.L., n.d.) . Fascism over Canada - an Expose by Fred Rose, (n.p.. 1937). Fascism Means War. (C.L.D.L, n.d.). In Defence. (C.L.D.L., n.d.). Pierce, G. Socialism and the C.C.F. (n.p., 1933). Political Servants of Capitalism - Answering Lawson and King, (n.p., n. d.). The Story of the Trial of the Eight Communist Leaders. United Front Against Fascism. (C.L.D.L., 1935). Will Canada Escape Fascism? (Canadian League Against War and Fascism, n.d.). Why Every Worker Should Join the Communist Party. (Workers* Publishing Association, 1930). Workers* Solidarity Against Fascism. (C.L.D.L., 1933). F. Theses Balawyder, A. "Canadian—Soviet Relations 1920-1935." Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, McGill University, 1966. Caplan, G. R. "The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Ontario, 1932-1945." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto 1961. Cook, R. "Canadian Liberalism in Wartime 1939-1945." Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Queen's University, 1956. McKenty, Neil. "Rum, Romanism and Power: A Study of the Leaders and Issues in the Ontario Provincial Election of 1934." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1965. Pelt, M. L. "The Communist Party of Canada 1929-1942." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1964. Prang, M. "Some Aspects of Political Radicalism in Canada between the Two World Wars." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1953. Young, W. D. Unpublished manuscript on the C.C.F. Party. Articles Bowker, W. F. "Basic Rights and Freedoms: What are They?" Canadian Bar Review. 1959, pp. 43-65. Caplan, G. R. "The Failure of Canadian Socialism: The Ontario Experience 1932-1945," Canadian Historical Review. 1963, vol. 44 (June), pp. 93-121. Cohen, M. "Some Considerations on the Origins of Habeas Corpus," Canadian Bar Review. 1938, pp. 92-117. Corry, J. A. "Changes in the Functions of Government," Canadian Historical Association Annual Report. 1945, pp. 15-24. Corry, J. A. "The Growth of Government Activities in Canada 1914-1921," Canadian Historical Association Annual Report. 1940, pp. 63-73. Duff, Chief Justice. "Address of Right Honourable Chief Justice Duff," Minutes of Proceedings of the Canadian Bar Association. 1933, pp. 104-111. Farris, J. W. de B. "Presidential Address," Minutes of Proceedings  of the Canadian Bar Association. 1938, pp. 73-81. Ginsberg, Sol Wiener. "What Unemployment does to People: A Study in Adjustment to Crisis," American Journal of  Psychiatry, vol. 99 (November, 1942), pp. 434-446. Hopkins, E. R. "Administrative Justice in Canada," Minutes of Proceedings of the Canadian Bar Association. 1939, pp. 142-158. Lederman, W. K. "The Nature and Problems of a B i l l of Rights," Canadian Bar Review. 1959, pp. 4-15. 178 Mulock, Sir William. "Address delivered by the Right Honourable Sir William Mulock. . .on the occasion of his 90th birthday," Canadian Bar Review. 1934, pp. 35-41. Kennedy, W. P. M. "Theories of Law and the Constitutional Law of the British Empire," Minutes of Proceedings of the  Canadian Bar Association. 1929, pp. 152-166. King, D. "Unemployment Relief (Direct Aid)," in Canada's  Unemployment Problem, (ed. L. Richter), Toronto: Macmillan Co. of Canada Ltd., 1933. Rowell, N. W. "Our Heritage in the Ci v i l and Common Law," Canadian Bar Review. 1934, pp. 393-405. St. Laurent, Louis. "Presidential Address, " Minutes of Proceedings of the Canadian Bar Association. 1931, pp. 99-109. Scott, F. R. "Freedom of Speech in Canada," Papers and  Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Canadian  Political Science Association, vol. V (May, 1933), pp. 169-189. Scott, F. R. "The Trial of the Toronto Communists," Queen?3  Quarterly, vol. 39-( August, 1932),pp. 512-527. Underhill, F. H. "Some Reflections on the Liberal Tradition. in Canada," Canadian Historical Association Annual Report. 1946, pp. 5-17. Urwick, E. J. "Freedom in our Time," Papers and Proceedings of  the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science  Association, vol. V (May. 1933). PP . 62-75. H. Books Bryce, Viscount James. Canada: An Actual Democracy. Toronto: Macmillan Co. of Canada. 1924. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Our Heritage of Freedom. Toronto: T. Nelson and Sons Ltd. 1937. Canadian Problems as seen by Twenty Outstanding Men of Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 1933. Cranston, J. H. Ink on My Fingers. Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1953. Cassidy, H. M. Unemployment and Relief in Ontario 1929-1932. Toronto: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd. 1932. Cast e l l .Hopkins, J. The Canadian Annual Review of Public  Affairs. Toronto: The Canadian Review Company. 1929-1935. Clark, C. S. Of Toronto the Good: A Social Study - The Queen  City as i t i s . Montreal: Toronto Publishing Co. 1898. Dicey, A. V. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the  Constitution. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. 1902. Dicey, A. V. Lectures on the Relation Between Law and Public  Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd. 1905. Guillet, Edwin C. Toronto from Trading Post to Great City. Toronto: The Ontario Publishing Co. Ltd. 1934. Harkness, Ross. J. E. Atkinson of the Star. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963. The Right Honourable Lord Hewart of Bury. The New Despotism. London: Ernest Benn Ltd. 1929. Harvison, C. W. The Horsemen. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd. 1967. Kerr, D. The Changing Face of Toronto—A Study in Urban Geography Ottawa: Queen's Printer. 1965. Kesterton, W. H. A History of Journalism in Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd. 1967.. Laskin, Bora. Canadian Constitutional Law. Toronto: The Carswell Co. I960. Macmurray, John. Conditions of Freedom. Toronto: The Ryerson Press. 1949. Masters, D. C. The Winnipeg General Strike. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1950. McNaught, Kenneth. A Prophet in Politics. A Biography of  J. S. Woodsworth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1959. Middleton, Jesse Edgar. The Municipality of Toronto - A History, three volumes. Toronto: Dominion Publishing Co., 1923.. Middleton, Jesse Edgar. Toronto's 100 Years. Toronto: The Centennial Committee. 1934. Schmeiser, D. A. Civil Liberties in Canada. London: Oxford University PressI 1964. 180 Scott, F. R. The Canadian Constitution and Human Rights. Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 1959. Scott, F. R. and H. M. Cassidy. Labor Conditions in the Men*s  Clothing Industry: A Report. Toronto: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. 1935. Smith, A. E. A l l My Life. Toronto: Progress Books. 1949. Stewart, M. D. and D. French. Ask No Quarter: A Biography of  Agnes Macphail. Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co. 1959. Tarnopolsky, Walter S. The Canadian B i l l of Rights. Toronto: The Carswell Co. Ltd. 1966. The Torontonian Society Blue Book And Club List. 1932. Thompson, W. H. Civil Liberties. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. 1938. Trotter, Reginald G. Charters of Our Freedom. Toronto: Ginn and Co. 1946. West, Bruce. Toronto. Toronto: Doubleday Canada Ltd. 1967. Zakuta, Leo. A Becalmed Protest Movement: A Study of Change  in the C.C.F. Published Dissertation for Doctorate of Philosophy, University of Chicago, Illinois, 1961. 

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.831.1-0302262/manifest

Comment

Related Items