Correspondence
| Published date | 01 March 1951 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070205100600131 |
| Date | 01 March 1951 |
| Subject Matter | Correspondence |
82
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
CORRESPONDENCE
3
Lakeview
Terrace,
The
Editor,
Ottawa,
October
27,
1950.
International Journal.
Sir,
Mr.
H.
Pearson
Gundy's
review
of
Mr.
Meighen's
speeches
contains
a
paragraph
on
the
constitutional
crisis
of
1926
which
cannot
be
allowed
to
pass
without
challenge.
1.
Mr.
Gundy, quoting
Mr.
O'Leary's
statement
that
the
speech
on
the
1926
crisis
presents
"the naked
facts,"
says
"
'the naked
facts'
have
long
been
on
record.
Apart
from
Hansard,
Dawson
presents
the
main
documents"
in
his
Constitutional
Issues
in Canada,
1900-1931.
(a)
There
is
a
lot
in
the
speech
that
is
not
in
Hansard.
The
Conservative
case
was
never
adequately
presented
to
the
House.
(b)
Dawson
does
print
"the
main
documents";
but
the
"naked
facts"
include
a
great
deal
besides
"documents."
Dawson
does
not
record
the
defeats
suffered
by
Mr.
King's
Government
before
it
asked
for
dissolution.
He
does
not
mention
the
fact
that
Mr.
Meighen's
Government
was
defeated only by a
majority
of
one,
by
a
broken
pair. He
does
not
mention any
of
the precedents
(at
least
13)
for
the temporary
Government.
Yet
the
first
two points
are
of
obvious
importance,
and
the
third
is
crucial.
It
destroys
the
claim
that
the
temporary
Government
was
unconstitutional,
a
claim
on
which
Mr.
King
at
times,
both
during
the
debates
(Commons
Debates,
1926,
pp.
5189-5225)
and
during
the
campaign
(speech
of
July
23.
quoted
in
Keith,
Speeches
and
Documents
on the
British
Dominions,
1918-1931,
pp.
153-4)
rested
his whole
case
against
Lord
Byng.
It
also
makes nonsense
of
Mr.
King's
assertion
(speech
of
July
23,
Keith,
op.
cit.,
p.
154,
and
Dawson,
op.
cit.,
p. 89)
that
the
issue
of
refusal
of
dissolution
"pales
into
relative
insignificance"
beside
the
issue
of
the
constitutionality
of
the
temporary
Government.
It
may
be
added
that
of
course
Dawson
had
no
space
to
print
anything
on
the
precedents
for
refusal
of
dissolution
(48 before
1926;
there
have
been
three
cases
since),
nor
any
of
the
numerous
opinions
of
constitutional
authorities
on
the
question.
But
these
also
are
of
the
highest
importance,
and they
are
overwhelmingly against
Mr.
King's
contentions.
2.
"Neuendorff,"
says
Mr.
Gundy,
"impartially
sums
up
this
cause
cgl~bre."
Dr.
Neuendorff's
statements
are
no
doubt
impartial;
as
im-
partial
as
mine
would
be
on
a
controversy
in
nuclear
physics,
and
for
precisely
the
same
reason:
total ignorance
of
the
subject.
They
have
also precisely
the
same
value.
Her
book
is
chock
full of
gross
and
palpable
errors.
My
own
notes on
them
cover over
twenty
pages
of
To continue reading
Request your trial