PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA

At the banquet given to the President of the United States, William McKinley, at the Auditorium. Chicago, October gth, 1899, in connection with the laying of the corner stone of the Post-Ofice of that city, *

In responding to the toast : “ The Dominion of Canada 2 Sir Wilfrid said :

MR. TOASTMASTER, Mr. PRESIDENT, ND GENTLEMEN :

I fully and cordially appreciate the kind feelings which have just been uttered by Mr. Toastmaster in terms 80 eloquent, and which you, gentlemen, have accepted and received in so sympathetic a manner.

Let me say at once that those feelings we will at all times reciprocate; reciprocate not only in words evanescent, but in actual, living deeds.

I take it to be an evidence of the good relations which in your estimation, gentlemen, ought to prevail between two such countries as are the United States and Canada; that you have notified us, your next-door neighbors, in this day of rejoicing, to take our share with you of your joy. We shall take back to our own country the most pleasant remembrance of the day.

* Norte : Comme ce discours n’a pas été traduit en frangais, nous le publions tel qu’il a été inséré dans les colonnes du journal “ The Tribune ”’, de Chicago.

Nos lecteurs auront donc l’avantage de le lire, nous le pensons bien, tel qu’il a été prononcé, et de constater avec quel succès, Sir Wilfrid Laurier peut exprimer les idées et les sentiments les plus élevés, dans la langue de ses compatriotes anglais.

We have seen many things here to-day, much to be admired; the imposing ceremonies of the morning, the fine pageant, the grand procession, the orderly and good-natured crowd, all these things are to be admired, and, to some extent, to be wondered at. But the one thing of all most to be admired, most to be remembered, is the inspiration of this festival, It is characteristic of the city of Chicago.

As a rule nations and cities celebrate the day of their foundation, or some great victory of some national triumph, in all cases some event which, when it occurred, was a cause of universal] joy and rejoicing. Not so, however, of the City of Chicago. In this, as in everything else, she does not tread the beaten paths; the day which she celebrates is not the day of her foundation, when hunters and fur traders unconsciously laid down the beginnings of what were to develop into the gigantic city; neither does she celebrate some great action in which American history abounds, nor even does she commemorate a deed selected from the life of some great men which the State has given to the nation, though Illinois can claim the proud privilege of having given to the nation one as great as Washington himself.

The day which she celebrates is the day of her direct calamity, the day when she was Swept out of existence by fire. This, I say, is characteristic of Chicago, because if history recalls her destruction, it also recalls her resurrection. It recalls the energy, the faith, the courage, the enthusiasm with which Chicago met and faced and conquered an appalling calamity,

For my part, well do I remember the awful day. But of all the things I most remember, of all the acts of courage and heroism which were brought forward by the occasion, the one thing which at the time struck me the most was the appeal issued by the business-men of Chicago on the smok-

‘ing ruins of their city. They appealed to their fellow citi-

zens not for alms, but, in most noble language they appealed especially to those who had business connections in Chicago to sustain them in their business in that hour of their trial. And if sustained in their business they were ready to meet and face the awful calamity which had befallen their city. Well, sir, in my estimation, in my judgment at lea:t, that was courage of the higher order. Whenever you meet courage you are sure to meet justice and generosity. Courage, justice and generosity always go together, and it is with satisfaction that I respond to the toast that is mine,

Because I must say that I feel that though the relations between Canada and the United States are good, though tuey are satisfactory, to my judgment they are not as good, as brotherly, as satisfactory as they ought to be. We are of the same stock; we spring from the same races on one side of the line as the other. We speak the same language. We have the same literature, and for more than a thousand years we have had a common history.

Let me recall to you the lines which in the darkest days of the civil war the Puritan poet of America issued to England:

“O, Englishmen, ” he said, “ O, Englishmen, “In hope and creed,

“In blood and tongue are brothers,

“We are all heirs of Runnymede. ”

Brothers we are, in the language of your own poet. May I not say that, while our relations are not always as brotherly as they should have been, may I not as! Mr. President, on the part of Canada and on the part f the United States (we are sometimes too prone to stand by the full conceptions of our rights, and exact all our rights to the last pound of flesh )—may I not ask if there have not been too often between us petty quarrels, which happily do not wound the heart of the nation ?

Sir, I am proud to say in the presence of the Chief

Executive of the United States that it is the belief of the Canadian government that we should make a supreme effort to better our relations and make the government of President McKinley and the present government of Canada, with the assent of Great Britain, so to work together as to remove all causes of recent dissention between us. And whether the commission sat in Quebec or in Washington, I am Sorry to say that the result was not commensurate with our expectations,

Shall I speak my mind ? (Cries of “ Yes, ”) We met a stumbling block in the question of the Alaskan frontier. Well, let me say here and now the commission could not settle that question and referred it to their particular governments, and they are now dealiag with it. May I be permitted to say here and now that we do not desire one inch of your land ! (Applause.) But if I state, however, that we want to hold our land, will that be an American sentiment, I want to know ? However, though that would not be an American sentiment, though it would not be a British or Canadian sentiment, I am here to Say above all, my fellow- countrymen, that we do not want to stand upon the extreme limits of our rights. We are ready to give and to take; we can afford to be just ; we can afford to be generous because we are strong. We have a population of 77,000,000—I beg pardon, I am mistaken, it is the reverse of that ( Laughter. ) But, pardon my mistake, although it is the reverse , I'am sure the sentiment is the same. But though we may have many little bickerings of that kind, I speak my whole mind and I believe I speak the mind of all you gentlemen when I say that after all when we go to the bottom of our hearts we will find that there is betweer. us a true, generous affection. (Applause.) There are no two nations to-day on the face of the globe so united as Great Britain and the United States of America.

The Secretary of State told us some few months ago

name

“ AE + venait hoa Pat L ur Eat nanR Lee ES

“URS et tp EE OR RAE TS

# È # Œ ae

that there was no treaty of alliance between Great Britain y and the United States of America. It is true there is between Great Britain and the United States of America no treaty of alliance which the pen can write and which the pen can unmake, but there is between Great Britain and the United States of America a unity of blood, of blood which is thicker than water (applause), and I appeal to recent history when I say that whenever one nation has to face an emergency—a greater emerger‘v than usual— forthwith the sympathies of the other 7: ons go to their sister.

When last year you were suddenly engaged in war with Spain, though Spain was the weaker party, and though it is natural that men should side with the weaker party, of blood; and I am sure that you will agree with me that, though our relations have not reached the degree of perfection to which I would aspire, from that day a new page had been turned in the history of our country,

It was no unusual occurrence before the month of May, 1898, to read in the British press of American arrogance: neither was it an unusual occurrence to read in the American press of British brutality. Since the month of May, 1898, these expressions have disappeared from the yocabulary. You do not hear to-day of American arrogance; neither do you hear of British brutality, but the only expressions which you find in the press of either country now are words of mutual respect and mutual affection. (Applause. )

Sir, an event took place in the month of June last that showed to me, at all events, conclusively, that there is between us a deep and sincere affection. I may be pardoned if I recall that instance, because I have to speak for myself. In the month of June last I spoke on the floor of the House of Commons of Canada on the question of Alaska, and I enunciated the obvious truism that interna-

tional problems can be settled in one or two ways only, either by arbitration or by war. And, although I proceeded to say immediately that war between Great Britain and the United States would be criminal and would not be thought of for a moment, still the word « war” created quite an excitement in this Country. For that causeless excitement, though I was indirectly the cause of it, I do not at this moment find any fault, because it convinced me to an absolute certainty that between your country an. my Country the relations have reached that degree of dignity and respect and affection that even the word“ war” jg never to be mentioned in a British Assembly or in an American Assembly. The word is not to be pronounced, not even to be predicated. It is not to be Pronounced at all. The idea is abhorrent to us.

I repeat what I then stated that war between Great Britain and the United States would be criminal—in my estimation and judgment just as criminal as the civil war which desolated your country some thirty years ago. Whatever may have been the mistaken views of the civilized world at the time, the civilized world has come to the unanimous conclusion that the war of the rebellion was a crime. The civilized world has come to the conclusion that it was a benefit to mankind that this rebellion did not Succeed, and that the sovernment of the people, by the people, and for the people did not perish from the earth. Your country was desolated for four long years by the awful scourge of civil war.

If there is anything of the many things which are to be admired in this great country of yours, the one thing, for my part, which I most admire, is the absolute success With which you have reestablished the union and erased all traces of the civil war. You have done it. What is the reason? There is one, I may say, that has been uttered by the President of the United States. I took down hig words:

CRSA ate aly sf

Pe aie lis Sik lpia PAT RE

“No responsibility which ever has resulted from war is tainted with dishonor. We have succeeded in establishing the cause of the union, because no blood was shed to reestablish the union except the blood which was shed by the sword; not one drop of blood was ever shed except by the power of the law, and what is the consequence !” You had it, in the consequence, in the war With Spain, when the men of the blue and the .-en of the gray, the men who had fought for the confederacy and the men that fought for the union, at the call of their country, came back to fight the battles of their own country under a united flag. That was the reason.

My friend Mr. Cullor said a moment ago that he might believe me almost au American. I am a British subject, but to this extent. I may say that, as every American a lover of liberty, a believer in democratic institutions, I rejoiced as any of you did at the spectacle which was presented at Santiago, El Caney, and elsewhere during that war. (Applause. )

Sirs, there was another civil war. There was a civil war in the last century. There was a civil war between England, then, and her colonies. The union which then existed between England and her colonies was severed. If it was severed, American citizens, as you know it was, it was through no fault of your fathers; the fault was altogether the fault of the British government of that day. (Applause.) If the British sovernment of that day had treated the American colonies as the British government for the last twenty or fifty years has treated its colonies, if Great Britain had given you then the same degree of liberty which it gives to Canada—my country—if it had given you, as it has given us, legislative independance absolute, the result would have been different ; the course of victory, the course of history, would have been exceedingly different.

But what has been done can not be undone. You car not expect that the union which was then Severed shal] ever be restored ; but can we not escape, can we not hope that if the union can not be restored under the law, at least there can be a union of hearts ? Can we not hope that the banhers of England and the banners of the United States: shall never, never again meet in conflict, except those conflicts provided by the arts of peace, such as we see to-day in the harbor of New York in the contest between Sham rock and Columbia for the Supremac, of naval architecture and naval prowess ? Can we not hepe that if ever the banners of England and the banners oi the United States are again to meet on the battlefield they shall meet entwined together in the defense of some holy cause, in the defense of holy justice, for the defense of the oppressed, for the enfranchisement of the downtrodden,and for the advancement of liberty, Progress and civilization ? (Great

applause. ) ees

Note: En outre des denx précédents discours, Sir Wilfrid en a prononcé plusieurs autres aux Etats-Unis,

Durant ies deux on trois jours qu'il passa à Chicago, il prononca deux autres discours ; le premier, a la réception grandiose qui lui a été faite le 8 octobre, à la salle ** Studebaker ”, par la Société St-Jean-Baptiste de cette ville; et le second, au grand banquet donné en son honnenr, le 10 octobre, au ‘ Great Northern Hotel ”’ par les Canadiens-A méricains, en présence des hantes persor.nalités de l'Etat de l'Illinois et de la ville de Chicago.

A Washington, où il est allé en 1898. comme membre de la Commission Internationale, Sir Wilfrid a aussi Prononcé plusieurs discours, en présence du Président, des Ministres, des Sénateurs et des représentants des Etats-Unis, et des sommités dans la magistrature, les sciences, l'armée, la marine, no‘ .nment : à l'Université Columbia, à l'inauguration du cours de droit international, le 15 novembre ; —au banquet donné en l’honneur des Commissaires Canadiens, le 3 décembre, à l'Hotel Lexington, Par les membres du Club ‘‘ Gridirion ” ;—au banquet donné en l'honneur des Commissaires Américains, le 19 décembre, à l'Hote} Shoreham, par les Commissaires Canadiens,

Inutile de dire l'immense succès oratoire qu’il obtint en toutes ces circonstances solennelles, Il faut lire les commentaires faits alors par la presse américaine et anglaise pour se rendre compte de l'enthousiasme qu'il sut créer dans ces grandes villes de l'Union Américaine.

Aussi, ces commentaires sont si élogieux que nos lecteurs nous sauront gré de les reproduire ici.

EYAn Crees

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, P.C., G. C. M. G.

Premier Ministre du Canada à Chicago.

oO

Du “ London Advertiser ”, de London, Ontario, en date du II octobre 1899.

Les conservateurs et les libéraux peuvent s’énorgueillir également de Sir Wilfrid Laurier en des occasions comme celle de la manifestation de Chicago, où il a paru devant une réunion d’étrangers comme le représentant non de son parti, mais de son pays. Le magnétisme et ! distinction de sa personne, son tact et son urbanité, son don incomparable de la parole, lui permettent de primer dans toutes les assemblées, et de jeter du lustre sur tout le Dominion. Il faudrait être canadien d’un bien pauvre esprit pour 1e pas se réjouir de l’impression créée par Sir Wilfrid Laurier sur le peuple britannique, et des éloges extraordinaires dont il a été l'objet durant le Jubile de la Reine. Son discours de Chicago, prononcé devant le Président des Etats-Unis et un auditoire des plus remarquables, a dénoté chez lui l'instinct de l’homme d’Etat de même que l’art de l’orateur. Sir Wilfrid a compris qu’il tenait l’oreille de la nation et il a saisi cette heureuse occasion de dissiper les malentendus américains, les préjugés au sujet de la question de frontière, et de faire un appel énergique en faveur de la justice à rendre au Canada. Au fond, c'était une critique de l'attitude des Américains, mais cela était donné d’une manière si déguisée que l’on ne pouvait s’en formaliser, et l’on était plutôt porté à admirer la note de fermeté et de dignité qui s’y révélait. Ce n’est pas tout orateur qui pourrait toucher aussi sûrement un point de controverse en semblable occurrence. Sir Wilfrid a tiré le meilleur profit possible de sa visite À Chicago, et l’éloquent plaidoyer qu’il a fait, devrait avoir son effet sur l'opinion publique des Américains.

Déjà la presse américaine retentit d’éloges sur l’adresse de Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Le News, de Détroit, dans un article de rédaction, intitulé : “ L’habile discours de Laurier ” lui fait ce compliment juste et tiatteur :

SR RE Er os cs |

Een mr esp

ras nd cabane

Er

“ Péloquent porteur de santés, le maire de la ville, ni par le ‘ gouverneur de l'Etat, ni par le plus vieux sénateur de PIIli- “ noix, Il est tombé des lèvres du premier-ministre du Canada, “et l’on pourrait affirmer que peu d’hommes n’ont Jamais “ parlé d’une façon plus gracieuse,

“Tl n’est peut-être pas juste de chercher à relever ce qui “ fait l’orateur, dans un discours d’aprés diner,— moins que “cet orateur ne soit Démosthènes—nous voulons parler de “ l’action oratoire. Les gens qui ont bien diné ne se soucient “ guère de la grande érudition ou de l'argumentation profonde. “ Ils se montrent indifférents à la logique, ils aiment mieux “s'entendre flatter l'oreille que s’instruire. Le premier-minis- “tre du Canada, un français, fortuitement placé à la tête d’une “ grande colonie anglaise, sait associer l’utile à l’agréable d'une “ façon si adroite, que l’on ne pourrait jamais s’y attendre en “une telle occasion.

“ Par exemple, le Canada a plus à gagner dans des rela- “ tions amicales avec les Etats-Unis que ceux-ci n’ont À gagner “dans des relations amicales avec le Canada, et sans rien “ sacrifier de s4 dignité, ou sans chercher à flagorner la plus “ grande puissance, Sir Wilfrid a assumé la tâche de promou- “ voir ces relations amicales en autant que la chose était pos-

“ la mère-patrie sont si laches qu’il n’est Pas question de les ‘rompre. Mais pour tout cela personne ne peut s’opposer a le

“ voir spéculer, dans les intéréts d’une nouvelle nation qui “s'est édifié au nord de nous, sur l’amitié qui a plus rappro- “ ché l’Angleterre et les Etats-Unis qu’ils ne l'ont jamais été ‘‘ auparavant.

‘ Les mains peuvent être celles de la Grande-Bretagne, ‘ mais la voix est ce!!e du Canada, et si Sir Wilfrid Laurier “ n'obtient pas pour son peuple le droit d’ainesse de l'amitié ‘américaine, il ne sera pas dit qu’il a échoué parce qu’il “ n’avait pas l’habileté nécessaire à la tâche. ”