Document Information
Date: 1865-01-21
By: Montreal Witness
Citation: “Correspondence”, Montreal Witness (21 January, 1865)
Other formats: TBA
CORRESPONDENCE
CONFEDERATION.
(To the Editor of the Montreal Witness.)
OAKLAND, Jan. 13, 1865.
DEAR SIR,—I have carefully perused your widely circulated journal occasionally, for several years, and of late have become a daily reader, and I am happy to see, and heartily subscribe to, the principles which you maintain. The tone of your paper, and the manly independence which characterizes it, together with the freedom of discussion of all useful and interesting topics for which your columns appear to be open, cannot fail to secure you the patronage and confidence of the Canadian public and especially of all true British subjects.
The contemplated change of our social and political condition is of such a nature, that it is not expedient to enter upon its completion without giving sufficient time for discussion and deliberation. And, sir, I doubt whether it will ever become expedient, or even safe, to venture legislation on that question till it has first been submitted to the people.
Does it look reasonable to you that a few leading politicians after having quarreled for years in our Legislative halls, mutually indulging in the most abusive epithets that their ingenuity could invent, and entailing a tax of hundreds of thousands of dollars on the country by their waste of time, through factious opposition, should all at once become so deeply interested in the general welfare of the country as to drop at a breath their political bludgeons, shake hands and enter upon a compromise, unless personal interest is at the bottom? And yet we are told, and gravely too, that it would be improper to submit this question to the public by a new election, because it would be attended with expense. How very economical some of our public men can be when it suits their purpose! They would much rather stay in Parliament when they can prepare life membership for themselves, and save the country the expense of a new election, than run the risk of going to the polls where the electors might very possibly suggest the propriety of their staying at home.
But this question could be brought before the public without a new election. And why has not the Government, if they are willing to hear the voice of the people, issued an order to this effect—that every legal voter might act either for or against this measure. This could be done, and this ought to be done; and time should be given so as to suit the convenience of all parties. It is said we can petition against it. We all know this, but what would this be?
1. To acknowledge that the body to whom we pray have a right to legislate us into the Confederation, and thereby virtually relinquish our own legal and moral right to act in the case.—We did not send our members to Parliament to compromise our interest in any Confederation; and we believe they have no right to legislate on this question unless they receive authority from the people; at all events, they have no moral right.
2nd. If this question be submitted to the people and should pass, it will then be a creation of their own, by adoption, and they would be far more likely to be contented, even if it should not meet all their expectations, than they would be if it should be made a law without their consent. A man will always think more of a club-footed child of his own than he would of a perfect one of his neighbours. More than half the object of legislation is realized when the people are satisfied.
S.D.