Contenu de l'article
THE HON. P.A. LANDRY SHOULD HE HAVE STOOD BY THE ACADIAN PEOPLE LONGER. EDITOR TRANSCRIPT: - He’s a funny writer “Liberal Conservateur” of the “Moniteur Acadien.” He tells the public that he joins his feeble voice to the powerful pleas of approbation of Judge Hanington’s appointment and disapproves of my views. Among the reasons he assigns for so doing appears the following: - Because I do not speak my mind fully; because I am a Nationalist; because the representatives of an equally respectable minority caused some “derailments” on the subject of judgeship. This is an attempt on his part at raising side issues without a word to meet the facts I adduced. On the point I raised I spoke my connections fully. As a proof of my withholding my thoughts he insinuates that had an Irish Roman Catholic been named I would be found declaiming against the appointment. He has no authority for such an insinuation. Had such an appointment been made with the approval of the Protestant majority, I would have been among the first to feel thankful to the majority for this mark of their appreciation of fair play to the minority. Whatever reproach the Acadians could have addressed to those representatives who owe their elections to the Acadian vote for such a step, they certainly would not have made against the majority the accusations they now have reason to make. I am not sure I know just what the correspondent means by “National.” That term I believe has been applied to the followers of Mercier in the province of Quebec. If he means that I belong to that school, I repudiate the assertion with indignation. If he means that I am in favor of all nationalities, race and creeds, being treated with equal consideration and fair play, then I am a “National” outre and with the deepest convictions on that point. I want no man to be considered simply on account of his religion, race or creed, but I am equally strong in my advocacy of carrying out the principle that no man should be hampered in his natural ambition for advancement because of his religion, race, or creed. I affirm that the judicious carrying out of that principle in this Dominion is the only equitable and safe way to insure harmony, mutual confidence, reciprocity of give and take, and cordial brotherhood among the citizens of this wide Dominion. I affirm that in all other Provinces but this province of New Brunswick that principle is studied, applied and for the most part reasonably carried out. I affirm that that principle guided the Fathers of Confederation in framing our constitution, that it was the basis on which rested the construction of the different Dominion Cabinets formed since confederation, that it was the ground work of all the principle appointments made by the different governments excepting where the New Brunswick Protestant influence prevented it. A few instances must make this manifest so far as New Brunswick is concerned. Anglin one of the most cabable, and one of the most influential of Liberals in New Brunswick was driven from Protestant St. John to Catholic Gloucester. Which influence drove him from St. John? Anglin, the man who fought the boldest and most determined battle for the success of his party, was kept out of the Mackenzie Government. Which influence did it? Watters, a man of recognized superior abilities and merit, was driven from St. John to Victoria. Which influence did it? Watters, one of the ablest of all the judges both Supreme and County, was kept from the Supreme Court bench. Which influence did it? The Gubernatorial chair at Fredericton has been filled for a quarter of a century by Protestants to the exclusion of the Catholics. Which influence did it? Quigley was denied a County Court judgeship. Which influence did it? The doors to the highest social position have been closed against every Roman Catholic. Which influence did it? Perhaps my esteemed critic will attempt to find plausible excuses for all this, but he can hardly expect the victim of this spirit of exclusion to rest satisfied with either the miserable excuse or the worse treatment. Yet he “Liberal Conservateur” attempts to defend all this. In this he goes further than the perpetrators of all these wrongs who quietly enjoy the honors and benefits derived from them, but wisely hold their tongues. “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” If this correspondent is a Catholic and as such professes to speak for them, he shows himself as ignorant of their history in this province, and as reckless for their good name and welfare as Adams has proved himself to be since he went to Ottawa. He forsooth congratulates the Minister of Justice on his action because he the Minister was deterred from doing what he knew to be right, by the fact of judge Landry having chosen to accept a county Court judgeship, and because of the “derailments” of “the representatives of an equally respectable minority” whatever that may mean. According to him it is a manner of congratulation that we have a Minister of Justice who can rise so superior to other mortals that he can transform an unjust act into an equitable one because of the wrong doing of Judge Landry and of the representatives of an “equally respectable minority.” The same logic would justify congratulations to the Minister of Justice if he had transformed his opposition to into support of the McCarthy bill seeking to abolish the French language and Catholic schools, and given for excuse that “the representative of an equally respectable minority “caused some derailments” and voted for it. A few scalawags such as the pretended Catholic who voted for the McCarthy bill failed to do their duty to a deserving minority, and that is according to Liberal Conservateur a good ground for a government to refuse to do justice to that minority. But, let me ask my friend, whom he means by these “representatives of an equally respectable minority.” Am I wrong in supposing he means Burns and Adams as the “representatives,” and the Irish Roman Catholics as the "equally respectable minority.” If so I agree with him that the minority is equally respectable, I differ with him as to Burns and Adams being their representatives. They no more represented the Irish Roman Catholics in their attitude in this matter of judgeship, than did Adams when he voted for the McCarthy bill. Burns, who has been safely TUCKED into his seat for the balance of the term by the Election Court, should be the representative of the Acadians who constitute four fifths of his constituency. Judas like he has betrayed them, and the Irish acknowledge no traitor as representative of their race. As for Adams! Well, for the time being he represents four deals, a reasonably, wide platform for so narrow a mind. The Northumberland deal, The Snowball Senatorship deal, a deal of spleen bad blood, and malice towards everything in French, and a deil of a deal of impudence in speech and action. If the noble and generous hearted Irish people claim him as a representative they are welcome to him, but they do not. That a government should have been swayed from doing right, because of the wishes and idle threats of two such is beyond belief. That the Minister of Justice yielded his own judgement to the spleen and vengeance of two such, unaided by the more powerful influence to which I charge the responsibility seems unworthy of belief. This correspondent wishes to know why I sign “A Catholic Conservative,” simply because in politics I am a Conservative, in religion a Catholic. Now, in answer to the insinuation made that Judge Landry violated his obligations to the county of Kent by retiring from the field of politics when he did, I am disposed to agree with him to the extent of expressing the belief that his duty was to stand by his people longer, and be with them even now in active politics. But, his having misunderstood his duty to them in this particular should not affect the claims of the Catholic population. If our chances for receiving justice and fair play are lessened by his present position, could it not be remedied by his returning to that larger field of usefulness, the political arena? We will hope. A CATHOLIC CONSERVATIVE St. Joseph, N.B, May 17.