THE COMMERCIAL UNION MOVEMENT--A TREASONABLE CONSPIRACY
At the first public meeting of the Imperial Federation League in
Toronto I made the charge that the Commercial Union movement was a
treasonable conspiracy on the part of a few men in Canada in connection
with a number of leading politicians in the United States to entrap
the Canadian people into annexation with that country. It will be of
interest to trace this phase of the question and its development during
the three or four years in which the great struggle took place.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, in conversation with William Allingham in
November, 1872, said, "Americans will not take any definite step; they
feel that Canada must come into the Confederation, and will of herself.
American party in Canada always at work."--_Allingham's Diary_, p. 217
(Macmillan).
It will be remembered that I said that the United States "were an
aggressive and grasping people." "They wanted Florida and they took
it, Louisiana and Alaska they acquired, California and Mexico they
conquered, and Texas they stole." I went on to say that "they had
conquered and stolen States in the South, and now they desired to
betray Canada in the North." This speech was made on the 24th March,
1888. I was criticised by some on the ground that my remarks were
extreme in their character, and was caricatured and ridiculed in the
comic papers.
Six months later I was vindicated in a remarkable manner.
Senator Sherman, at that time one of the foremost statesmen of the
United States, and chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Affairs,
made a very significant speech before the Senate on the 18th September,
1888. He said:
And now, Mr. President, taking a broader view of the question, I
submit if the time has not come when the people of the United States
and Canada should take a broader view of their relations to each other
than has heretofore seemed practicable. Our whole history since the
conquest of Canada by Great Britain in 1763 has been a continuous
warning that we cannot be at peace with each other except by political
as well as commercial union. The fate of Canada should have followed
the fortunes of the Colonies in the American Revolution. It would
have been better for all, for the Mother Country as well, if all this
continent north of Mexico had participated in the formation, and
shared in common the blessings and prosperity, of the American Union.
So evidently our fathers thought, for among the earliest military
movements by the Continental Congress was the expedition for the
occupation of Canada and the capture of the British forces in Montreal
and Quebec. The story of the failure of the expedition--the heroism of
Arnold and Burr, the death of Montgomery, and the fearful sufferings
borne by the Continental forces in the march and retreat--is familiar
to every student of American history. . . .
Without going into the details so familiar to the Senate, it is
sufficient to say that Spain held Florida, France held all west of the
Mississippi, Mexico held Texas west to the Pacific, and England held
Canada. The United States held, subject to the Indian title, only the
region between the Mississippi and the Atlantic. The statesmen of this
Government early discerned the fact that it was impossible that Spain,
France, and Mexico should hold the territory then held by them without
serious detriment to the interests and prosperity of the United
States, and without the danger that was always present of conflicts
with the European Powers maintaining Governments in contiguous
territory. It was a wise policy and a necessity to acquire these vast
regions and add them to this country. They were acquired and are now
held.
Precisely the same considerations apply to Canada, with greater force.
The commercial conditions have vastly changed within twenty-five
years. Railroads have been built across the continent in our own
country and in Canada. The seaboard is of such a character, and its
geographical situation is such on both oceans, that perfect freedom as
to transportation is absolutely essential, not only to the prosperity
of the two countries, but to the entire commerce of the world: and as
far as the interests of the two people are concerned, they are divided
by a mere imaginary line. They live next-door neighbours to each
other, and there should be a perfect freedom of intercourse between
them.
A denial of that intercourse, or the withholding of it from them,
rests simply and wholly upon the accident that a European Power
one hundred years ago was able to hold that territory against us;
but her interest has practically passed away and Canada has become
an independent Government to all intents and purposes, as much so
as Texas was after she separated herself from Mexico. So that all
the considerations that entered into the acquisition of Florida,
Louisiana, and the Pacific coast, and Texas, apply to Canada, greatly
strengthened by the changed condition of commercial relations and
matters of transportation. These intensify, not only the propriety,
but the absolute necessity of both a commercial and a political union
between Canada and the United States. . . .
The way to union with Canada is not by hostile legislation; not by
acts of retaliation, but by friendly overtures. This union is one
of the events that must inevitably come in the future; it will come
by the logic of the situation, and no politician or combination of
politicians can prevent it. The true policy of this Government is to
tender freedom in trade and intercourse, and to make this tender in
such a fraternal way that it shall be an overture to the Canadian
people to become a part of this Republic. . . .
The settlement of the North-West Territory, the Louisiana and
Florida purchases, the annexation of Texas, and the acquisition from
Mexico are examples of the adaptation of our form of government for
expansion, to absorb and unite, to enrich and build up, to ingraft in
our body politic adjacent countries, and while strengthening the older
States, confer prosperity and development to the new States admitted
into this brotherhood of Republican States. . . .
With a firm conviction that this consummation most devoutly to be
wished is within the womb of destiny, and believing that it is our
duty to hasten its coming, I am not willing, for one, to vote for any
measure not demanded by national honour that will tend to postpone the
good time coming, when the American flag will be the signal and sign
of the union of all the English-speaking peoples of the continent from
the Rio Grande to the Arctic Ocean.
I ask that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
I drew attention to this speech in a letter to the Toronto _Globe_ on
the 26th September, 1888. After quoting a number of extracts from it, I
went on to say,
"This man is honest and outspoken. He is trying to entice us by kindly
methods to annexation, which would be the annihilation of Canada as a
nation; but does not his whole argument prove the absolute correctness
of the view I took of Commercial Union at the Imperial Federation
meeting, and does it not prove that his co-worker Wiman, being a
Canadian, was acting the part of a traitor, in trying to betray his
native country into a course which could only end in placing it
absolutely in the hands of a foreign and hostile Power?"
A few days later another incident occurred showing the active interest
that was being taken in the annexation movement. Senator Sherman's
speech was delivered on the 18th September, 1888; on the 29th of the
same month, Erastus Wiman sent the following telegram to a number of
the Canadian newspapers:
NEW YORK, _29th Sept._
I deem it my duty to say that information from Washington reaches me
of a reliable character to the effect that the Senate Committee of
Foreign Affairs has, during the past few days, in furtherance of the
views of its Chairman, Senator Sherman, been discussing the question
of inviting the Dominion of Canada to join the United States. So
far have matters progressed that it is not at all unlikely that a
resolution will be reported for concurrent action of both Houses,
declaring it to be the duty of the President to open negotiations
with Great Britain, looking to a political union between the
English-speaking nations on this continent.
The condition attending the invitation of Canada is understood to be
that the United States would assume the entire public debt of the
Dominion, estimated at $300,000,000.
Commercial Union was urged as the basis of the proposed negotiation,
on the ground that while a large majority might be secured for it,
only a small minority favoured political union, but the sentiment of
the Committee was so strong in favour of proposing at first Political
Union, that it was impossible to contend with it.
ERASTUS WIMAN.
An attempt was made by Mr. Wiman to withdraw this message, but it
failed, and it was published in two or three papers.
The United States papers were for a year or two filled with articles
discussing annexation, sometimes in friendly strains, sometimes in a
most hostile spirit. President Cleveland's retaliation proclamation
following closely the refusal of the United States Senate to confirm a
treaty which had been agreed upon between Great Britain and the United
States, was a direct threat against Canada, issued to the people of the
Republic at a time likely to influence the result of the approaching
Presidential election.
On the 26th September, 1888, the Chicago _Tribune_ concluded a very
aggressive article with these words:
There are two ways in which Canada can protect herself from all
possibility of a quarrel with this country about fish. One of these
is by commercial union with the United States. The other is political
union. If she is not ready for either, then her safety lies in not
provoking the United States by unfair or unfriendly dealing, for when
the provocation comes, Uncle Sam will reach out and take her in, in
order to ensure quiet, and neither she nor her venerable old mother
can prevent it.
This paper about the same time had a cartoon depicting "The United
States in 1900," showing Uncle Sam bestriding the whole North American
continent.
The New York _World_, in December, 1888, also published a map of
North America to show what the United States would look like after
Canada came in, and depicted our country divided up into twenty-eight
new States and territories, and named to suit the Yankee taste. In
connection with this map the _World_ published an interview with
Senator Sherman, in which he advocated strenuously the annexation of
Canada to the United States, saying that "the fisheries dispute and the
question of the right of free transit of American goods over Canadian
railroads are a type of the disputes that have vexed the two nations
for a century, and will continue to disturb them as long as the present
conditions exist. To get rid of these questions we must get rid of the
frontier."
In the descriptive article on the map everything that could help to
excite the cupidity of the people of the United States was said and
with great ability, and Professor Goldwin Smith was cited as declaring:
It is my avowed conviction that the union of the English-speaking
race upon this continent will some day come to pass. For twenty years
I have watched the action of the social and economical forces which
are all, as it seems to me, drawing powerfully and steadily in that
direction.
The map and the articles accompanying it were evidently published to
accustom the minds of the people of the United States to the idea of
expansion and aggression:
What a majestic empire the accompanying map suggests; one unbroken
line from the Arctic Ocean to the Torrid Zone. The United States
is here shown as embracing nearly the whole of the North American
continent. Having conquered the Western wilderness the star of
Empire northward points its way. . . . There would be no more trouble
about fishing treaties or retaliation measures, and peace with all
nations would be assured, by making the United States absolute master
of the vast Western continent. The Empire that this nation would
embrace under such circumstances is so vast in extent that none other
furnishes a parallel.
This is only an illustration of the feeling all over the United States
at this period from 1888 to 1890. The newspapers and magazines were
filled with articles and cartoons all pointing in the same direction.
Mr. Whitney, a member of the United States Cabinet, even went so far as
to say that four armies of 25,000 men each could easily conquer Canada,
indicating that the question of attacking Canada had been thought of.
General Benjamin F. Butler, in the _North American Review_, one of
their most respectable magazines, speaking of annexation, said, "Is
not this the fate of Canada? Peacefully, we hope; forcefully, if we
must," and in the truculent spirit of a freebooter he suggested that
the invading army should be paid by dividing up our land among them.
General J. H. Wilson, a prominent railway manager, presented a petition
to the United States Senate in which he said:
The best and most thoughtful citizens were coming to look upon
the existence of Canada, and the allied British possessions in
North America, as a continuous and growing menace to our peace and
prosperity, and that they should be brought under the constitution and
laws of our country as soon as possible, peacefully if it can be so
arranged, but forcibly if it must.
Then came the McKinley Bill especially bearing upon the articles where
Canada's trade could be most seriously injured. It was believed that
traitors in our own country assisted in arranging this part of the
tariff so as to strike Canada as severely as possible. As another
instance of the unprincipled manner in which these conspirators carried
on their work, the following Press dispatch was sent to some of the
United States papers:
At a meeting called in Stimpson, Ontario, to hear a debate on
annexation _v._ independence or continued dependence, a vote taken
after the speakers had finished showed 418 for the annexation to 21
for the _status quo_. It seems almost incredible, but this meeting is
a good indication of the rapid strides the annexation sentiment is
making among the Canadian people. The Tories cannot keep Canada out of
the Union much longer.
As I have never been able to discover any place of that name in
Ontario, and as there is no such post office in the official list, it
is evident that the dispatch was a pure invention for the purpose of
deceiving the people of the United States.
Another important indication of the feeling is shown in an article in
the New York _Daily Commercial Bulletin_ in November, 1888, referring
to certain political considerations as between Canada and the States.
It states:
What these are may be inferred from the recent utterances of prominent
American statesmen like Senator Sherman and Mr. Whitney, Secretary
of the Navy, just previous to the recent election, with reference
to which the _Bulletin_ has recently had something to say. Both
are inimical to commercial union unless it be also complemented
by political union; or, to phrase it more plainly, they insist
that annexation of Canada to the United States can afford the only
effective guarantee of satisfactory relations between the two
countries, if these are to be permanent. These prominent public men,
representing each of the great parties that have alternately the
administration of this Government in their hands, we are persuaded,
did not put forth these views at random, but that they voiced the
views of other political leaders, their associates, who are aiming at
making Canadian annexation the leading issue at the next Presidential
election. As if speaking for the Republicans, Senator Sherman, as has
already been shown, thinks the country is now ready for the question;
while Secretary Whitney, as if speaking for the other political party,
is not less eager to bring the country face to face with it, even at
the risk of a war with England, though it is but justice to him to say
that he is of the opinion that the Mother Country, if really persuaded
that the Canadians themselves were in favour of separating from her,
would not fire a gun nor spend a pound sterling to prevent it. . . .
The whole drift is unquestionably in that direction (political union),
and in the meantime we do not look for positive action on the part of
Congress, on either commercial reciprocity or the fisheries, at this
session or the next. These questions, in all human probability, will
be purposely left open by the party managers in order to force the
greater issue, which, as it seems to me, none but a blind man can fail
to see is already looming up with unmistakable distinctness in the
future.
The _New York World_ in the early part of 1890 "instructed its
correspondents in Montreal, Toronto, and Quebec to describe impartially
the political situation in Canada in regard to annexation to the United
States." The report charges Premier Mercier with being "a firm believer
in annexation as the ultimate destiny of the Dominion of Canada,"
but he "is too shrewd a politician to openly preach annexation to
his fellow countrymen under existing circumstances." The report also
quotes the Toronto _Globe_ as saying that the Canadian people "find
the Colonial yoke a galling one," and that "the time when Canadian
patriotism was synonymous with loyalty to the British connection has
long since gone by."
The concluding paragraph of the _World's_ article is the most
suggestive and insolent:
Nobody who has studied the peculiar methods by which elections are
won in Canada will deny the fact, that five or six million dollars,
judiciously expended in this country, would secure the return to
Parliament of a majority pledged to the annexation of Canada to the
United States.
The leading men in this conspiracy in Canada were Edward Farrer,
Solomon White, Elgin Myers, E. A. Macdonald, Goldwin Smith, and John
Charlton, the two latter being the only men of any prominent status
or position in the movement, and after a time Charlton left it. These
men were avowed annexationists, while there were a great many in
favour of commercial union who did not believe that it would result in
annexation, or did not care, and there were numbers who were ready to
float with the stream, and quite willing to advocate annexation if they
thought the movement was likely to succeed. When the Continental Union
Association was formed in 1892, Goldwin Smith accepted the Honorary
Presidency in Canada, for the organisation had its principal strength
in New York, where a large number of prominent and wealthy men joined
its ranks, Francis Wayland Glen being the Secretary. Glen became angry
at the defection of some Liberal leaders after they obtained office,
and gave the names of the organisers in a letter to the Ottawa _Evening
Journal_ of the 13th September, 1904, as follows:
Charles A. Dana, Andrew Carnegie, John Jacob Astor, Ethan Allen,
Warner Miller, Edward Lauterbach, Wm. C. Whitney, Orlando B. Potter,
Horace Porter, John Hay, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Oswald
Ottendorfer, Cornelius N. Bliss, John D. Long, Jno. B. Foraker, Knute
Nelson, Jacob Gallinger, Roswell P. Flower, Joseph Jno. O'Donohue,
Chauncey M. Depew, John P. Jones, Wm. Walter Phelps, General
Butterfield, General Henry W. Slocum, General James H. Wilson, General
Granville W. Dodge, Charles Francis Adams, Oliver Ames, Seth Low,
Bourke Cochrane, John C. McGuire, Dennis O'Brien, Charles L. Tiffany,
John Clafflin, Nathan Straus, and Samuel Spencer.
In the list we received in addition to these there were others, nearly
500 in all.
Afterwards, in 1893, I was able to get some further information as to
the treasonable nature of the movement as far as the Canadian side
of it was concerned. The intention of those interested in the United
States was to endeavour to extend the power of that country to the
Arctic Ocean, as it had been extended to Mexico and the Pacific.
The Continental Union League in New York was in close connection with
the Continental Union Association of Ontario. Mr. Goldwin Smith, as I
have said, accepted the position of Honorary President, John Morrison
was the President, and T. M. White Secretary. The headquarters were
in Toronto. We had information at the time that Mr. Goldwin Smith
subscribed $500 to the funds, and that this was intended to be an
annual subscription.
There were two members of our League with whom I was constantly
conferring on the private matters connected with our work. Upon them,
more than on any others, did I depend for advice, for consultation,
and for assistance, and I can never forget the obligations I am under
to them. We three accidentally saw an opportunity of getting some
knowledge of the working of the Continental Union League in New York.
By great good fortune we were able to perfect arrangements by which
one who was in the confidence of the movement in New York was induced
to send us any information that could be obtained. For a considerable
time we were in receipt of most interesting information, much of which
was verified by independent evidence. We often heard from our agent
beforehand of what was going to take place, and every time matters
came to pass just as we had been forewarned. In many instances we had
independent corroborative evidence that the statements were reliable.
We were informed of a written agreement, signed by a Canadian Liberal
leader, to have legislation carried to handicap the Canadian Pacific
Railway if the Liberal party came into power. Our agent even obtained
knowledge of where and by whom it was signed, and who at the time had
custody of it. We received copies of many of Glen's letters to Mercier,
Fairer, Bourke Cochrane, and others. One letter to Colonel John Hay
at Washington informed him that the New York League was working in
conjunction with the Ontario League. A letter to Farrer told him of
a meeting held in November, 1893, in the New York _Sun_ office, at
which Honore Mercier, John Morrison, Tarte, and Robidoux were present,
that money was asked to aid the Liberals, but Glen objected. This
information we received some months after this meeting had been held.
Eleven years later, in the letter already referred to, which Glen in
his anger wrote to the Ottawa _Journal_ of the 13th September, 1904, I
find the following paragraph:
Upon the 4th November, 1893, Wilfrid Laurier held a meeting of his
friends in Montreal, and that meeting sent a deputation to New
York to ask funds of the National Continental Union League for the
elections, which it was supposed would take place in the spring of
1894. Israel Tarte, Honore Mercier, J. E. Robidoux, Louis Joseph
Papineau and Mr. Langelier, and Sir Oliver Mowat was represented by
John Morison, of Toronto. These gentlemen met Mr. Dana, Mr. Carnegie,
and myself in the office of _The Sun_ on November 6th. Mr. Tarte
asked as a beginning for $50,000, with which to purchase _Le Monde_
newspaper, and Mr. Morison desired $50,000 to purchase a labour paper
in Toronto. Mr. Carnegie asked Mr. Tarte if he was prepared to pledge
the Liberal party to advocate the independence of Canada as a prelude
to continental union.
He replied that if we furnished them with money for the elections they
would do so if they were successful in the elections. Mr. Morison
agreed with Mr. Tarte. Mr. Carnegie then asked Hon. Honore Mercier if
he would contest the province of Quebec in favour of the independence
of Canada as a prelude to continental union. He replied, Yes.
This statement cannot be taken as reliable. Glen himself was not
reliable, and it is not at all probable that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had
anything to do with sending these men to New York, and yet some of them
may have told Glen that he had, or Glen may have assumed it. Certainly
Sir Oliver Mowat never asked Mr. Morison to make any application of any
kind. I do not believe he would have entrusted him with any mission,
and I am sure Sir Oliver Mowat was as much opposed to these intrigues
as I was. It is quite possible that Morison posed in New York as
representing Sir Oliver Mowat, but it was an absurdity.
The letter of Glen, however, proves that there was some foundation for
the information our agent sent to us.
In a letter to Mercier in February, 1894, Glen stated that John
Charlton, an Ontario Liberal, had called on Dana the day before for
money, and I have another letter signed by Francis W. Glen which
corroborates this statement of our informant.
Mr. Goldwin Smith's name appeared often in the correspondence, so did
Erastus Wiman's. Myers is mentioned as going over to New York to see
Dana. Glen writes to Mercier on the 3rd April, 1894, to write to Farrer
in reference to Goldwin Smith. On the same day he wrote to Bourke
Cochrane telling him that Goldwin Smith was anxious for a resolution in
Congress. A copy of the draft of the resolution referred to, which was
sent to us, reads as follows:
RESOLVED:
That we believe that the political union of the two great
English-speaking communities who now occupy and control North America
will deliver the continent from the scourge of war, and securely
dedicate it to peaceful industry and progress, lessen the _per
capita_ cost of government and defence, ensure the rapid development
of its boundless natural resources, enlarge its domestic and foreign
commerce, unite all interests in creating a systematic development
of its means of internal communication with the sea-board by rail
and water, protect and preserve its wealth, resources, privileges,
and opportunities as the undisputed heritage of all, immensely add to
its influence, prestige, and power, promote, extend, and perpetuate
government by the people, and remove for ever the causes most likely
to seriously disturb cordial relations and kindly intercourse with the
Motherland. We therefore invite the Canadian people to cast in their
lot with their own continent, and assure them that they shall have all
the continent can give them. We will respect their freedom of action,
and welcome them when they desire it into an equal and honourable
union.
I do not know whether this was introduced into Congress or not.
We also had information of meetings at Carnegie's house and _The
Sun_ office, and what took place at them. All our information was
conveyed to Sir John Thompson, and at a meeting in Halifax he made
some reference to movements that were going on in the States, which
apparently attracted attention.
Not long after this we heard from our informant that at a meeting where
Carnegie, Dana, and Goldwin Smith were present, Goldwin Smith said
they would have to be very careful, as he believed there was a leak
somewhere.
Among other information we obtained was a copy of the subscriptions to
the fund. Some of the more important were Andrew Carnegie, $600; R. P.
Flower, $500; Charles A. Dana, $460; J. J. Astor, $200; O. B. Potter,
$150; W. C. Whitney, $100, &c.
Outside and apart from all this information, I was shown a letter
from Honore Mercier to Charles A. Dana, and a letter enclosing it to
the President of the Continental Union Association of Ontario. I was
able to secure photographs of these letters. I forwarded one copy of
these photographs to Lord Salisbury, but kept copies from which the
facsimiles here published are taken.
MERCIER, GOUIN, & LEMIEUX, _Avocats_.
MONTREAL,
_9th August, 1893_.
Hon. Honore Mercier, C.R.
Lomer Gouin, L.L.B.
Rodolphe Lemieux, L.L.L.
[_Private and Confidential._]
To the Honorable MR. DANA, Editor of _The Sun_, New York.
DEAR SIR,--
I have met General Kirwin Sunday last, and am satisfied with the
general result of the interview.
I asked him to see you without delay, and to tell you what took place.
As the matter he placed before me concerns chiefly the American side
of our common cause, I thought better to have your view first and be
guided by you.
General Kirwin seems to be a reliable man, as you stated in your
letter, and to be much devoted to our cause.
My trip in the East has been a success and will bring out a strong and
very important move in favour of Canadian Independence.
I will be in Chicago on the 22nd inst. to take part in the French
Canadian Convention and hope to obtain there a good result.
Allow me to bring your attention to my state of poverty and to ask you
if our New York friends could not come to my rescue, in order that I
might continue the work, in providing me with at least my travelling
expenses.
I make that suggestion very reluctantly but by necessity.
Believe me, dear Sir,
Yours very truly,
HONORE MERCIER.
P.S.--I would advise you to seal and register every letter you will
send me. I intend to leave for Chicago on Sunday, the 13th inst., and
stop at Detroit and Buffalo.
H. M.
[Illustration: facsimile of letter]
"THE SUN,"
_New York, Aug. 12, 1893_.
DEAR MR. MORISON,
I have just received the enclosed letter. Its demands are moderate.
You know the sum which is in my hands. How much should I send him?
Please return the letter with your answer.
Yours faithfully,
C. A. DANA.
JAMES MORISON, Esq.,
_Toronto, Canada_.
[Illustration: facsimile of letter]
This letter of Mercier's is very significant. I do not understand
the allusion to General Kirwin. His name was Michael Kirwin, and
he is not to be confused with Capt. Michael Kirwan who served in
the North-West Rebellion. I knew the latter well, he was an Irish
gentleman. The General Kirwin was a Fenian, and from what I heard
of him at the time I gathered that he was somewhat of a soldier of
fortune. Whether Mercier was intriguing for a Fenian rising or for
Fenian influence in the United States in favour of annexation I do not
know, but the association with such a man had a sinister look, to my
mind. The letter, however, shows Mercier's strong support of Canadian
Independence, and his desire to obtain money from foreign enemies of
his country to enable him to carry out his intrigues.
The transmission of this letter to the President of the Continental
Union Association of Ontario for advice as to how much money should
be paid out to Mercier shows how closely the two organisations were
working together.
The foregoing pages show clearly the object and aim of the Commercial
Union Conspiracy, the widespread influence of the movement among the
foremost men of the United States, the dangers Canada had to face,
with the power of a great country active and unscrupulous against her,
and embarrassed by the internal treachery of disloyal men in her own
borders. My main object in the following chapters will be to describe
the efforts and exertions made to warn our people, and to frustrate the
designs and intrigues of our enemies at home and abroad.