LIBERTY AND 'AUTHORITY: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN TORONTO, 1929-1935 by Suzanne Michelle Skebo B.A., University of Toronto, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History We acaept this thesis as conforming to the required standard The University of British Columbia September, 1968 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library.sha.il make it freely,available for reference and Study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by, the Head of my Department or by hils representatives. It is understood that copying or pub 1ication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ^ftjrf-, ABSTRACT Liberty and Authority:- Cavil Liberties in Toronto, 1929-1935 This thesis examines the practical implications of the acceptance of "traditional British liberties" in a particular Canadian city and period. The city of Toronto was chosen because it was here that one found the loudest professions of admiration and reverence for "things British." The period, 1929-1935, the early years of the Great Depression, commended itself because the economic chaos and social tension of these years brought to the fore questions as to the meaning and relative value of liberty and authority. Consideration of the problem of liberty and authority from 1929-1935 also enables one to examine the less statistical, less tangible impact of the Great Depression on a segment of Canadian society. An attempt is made to examine the attitudes toward liberty and authority among particular groups in Toronto, and to analyse the basic assumptions and thought patterns that their attitudes appear to express. The thesis makes no attempt to consider specific issues from a purely legalistic or judicial point of view. Certain problems are endemic in an undertaking of this kind. The chief problem is the absence of any precise technique for evaluating objectively the impact of ideas.as motivating forces in history. An attempt is made to calculate the degree of support for particular opinions, such as those presented by the major newspapers, but only in a general fashion. What appear to be of more value and interest to the historian are the underlying assumptions behind the ideas expressed, in so far as they reflect the social,, political and economic attutudes of a particular period. Thus, the main emphasis is upon the representative quality of the opinions expressed, rather than upon the discovery of the attitude of every sector of the city. Four specific cases involving the respective limits of liberty and authority are examined—the policy of the Toronto Board of Police Commis• sioners in prohibiting certain kinds of meetings in the streets, parks and halls of the city, 1929-1933; Section 98 of the Criminal Code, and the conviction in Toronto, under Section 98, of eight Communist leaders in November, 1931; the sedition trial of A. E. Smith, secretary of the Canadian Labor Defence League in March, 1934; and the response to the Regina Riot of July, 1935. The reaction to these controversies was complex and diverse within Toronto. Large and important sectors of the city, of which the Globe, the Telegram, and the Mail and Empire were the chief spokesmen, saw no question of the invasion of "traditional British liberties," but only the need for authority in the face of disorder and instability. The soap-box controversialists of Hyde Park might be acceptable in England, a country with thousands of years of tradition, but not in Canada, a new country in the midst of economic chaos—a new country with "foreign" elements in the midst of its population. For much smaller numbers of Torontonians, of whom the Star, the Canadian Forum and the C. C. F. Party were the chief representatives, the cases examined clearly raised questions about the liberty of the individual in the face of the authority of the state. In fact, the attitudes expressed by different sectors of the population reflected contradictory views of the potency and quality of the Russian Communist threat to Canadian society, of the needs dictated by the economic dislocation of the Great Depression, of the possibility and desirability of change and readaptation in the Canadian economic, political and social structure. Further, the attitudes expressed on liberty and authority revealed assumptions about the position of the intellectual in public affairs and the changing nature of government activity in the life of the nation. Even among those who could at least agree that an invasion of the rights of the individual had occurred, there was little consensus as to the precise methods to be employed so as to effect a change in governmental policy. Close examination of the problem of civil liberties in Toronto reveals that no real consensus existed as to the precise meaning and implications of "traditional British liberties," and the issue failed to emerge as a black-and-white political question. In part, the phrase "traditional British liberties" served as an umbrella term for the expression of class attitudes toward liberty and authority, but its use was far more complex than a simple class interpretation would imply. The phrase "traditional British liberties" served to express particular attitudes and assumptions towards liberty and authority that reflected peculiarly Canadian needs and conditions. In effect, both sides of the controversy were attempting to define "Canadianism." Examination of the question of liberty and authority in Toronto further reveals that the major Canadian response to the Great Depression weighted the scales heavily on the side of authority; however, a critical spirit, characteristic of modern urban communities^ did gain momentum during the Depression^and, through its assertion on such occasions as the sedition trial of A. E. Smith and the conviction of the eight Communist leaders, it served to widen the practical limits of liberty in Canada. 1 LIBERTY AND AUTHORITY: CIVIL LIBERTIES IN TORONTO, 1929-1935 City of goodness I smugly by the lake, No spirit in Montgomery's Tavern seems to wake. Matthews and Lount are swinging in the wind, Unnoticed where Melinda's can is dinned. Gourlayl Mackenzie! can you not hear my call? Is Freedom dead - and no God after all? Cyril Malcom Lapointe (Canadian Forum. October, 1931) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. THE CANADIAN LEGAL INHERITANCE 8 III. TORONTO IN THE 1920*s and 1930»s 19 IV. FREEDOM OF SPEECH 30 V. SECTION 98 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE 45 VI. THE SEDITION TRIAL OF A. E. SMITH AND THE REGLNA RIOT 57 VII. THE COMMUNIST MENACE 70 VIII. THE DEPRESSION PHENOMENON g2 IX. METHODS OF PROTEST 94 X. CONCLUSION 99 NOTES 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 \ 3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist with• out discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, ... b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; c) freedom of religion; d) freedom of speech; e) freedom of assembly and association; and f) freedom of the press. 1 Most scholars who have examined and commented on the Canadian constitutional structure and the evolution of Canada from colony to nation have tended to accept this section of the Canadian Bill of Rights as an accurate description of Canadian conditions, past and present. Indeed, there has existed a marked tendency to note—and to applaud—the fine 2 balance created between liberty and authority in the Canadian nation. According to popular mythology, a tradition of law and order had become firmly entrenched that was frequently in sharp contrast to the traditions of its more unruly neighbour to the south. "Seemingly, however, law and order had been achieved without- sacrificing the ideal of the liberty of the individual in its relation to the authority of the state—an ideal which lay at the base of both British and American theories of govern• ment. In 1924, Viscount Bryce wrote concerning CanadaTs juxtaposition of liberty and authority: Law and order are fully secured everywhere even in the wildest parts of the West. The judiciary is able and respected. Criminal justice is dispensed promptly, 4 efficiently and impartially. The spirit of license, a contempt of authority, a negligence in enforcing the laws have been so often dwelt upon as characteristic of democracy that their absence from Canada is a thing of which she may well be proud. .... There are those who regard the prohibition of the sale of intoxicants as an inroad upon individual liberty, however great the benefit to the community. Apart from that controversial matter, the citizen is nowhere not even in Britain and the United States, better guaranteed in the enjoyment of his private civil rights. The Executive interferes as little as possible with him. Neither does public opinion. 3 It had been continuously asserted that the key to that fine balance lay in the whole-hearted Canadian acceptance of the "traditional charters of British liberty." The Canadian confederation of 1867 produced no written charter guaranteeing the specific British traditions that bore direct relevance to the problem of the liberty of the individual and the authority of the state, yet the preamble of the British North America Act implicitly laid the foundations for the acceptance of those traditions developed in English parliamentary and common law: Whereas the Province of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.