Reminiscences of a Raconteur, Between the '40s and the '20sHam, George H. (George Henry)
History
Reminiscences of a Raconteur, Between the '40s and the '20s
Ham, George H. (George Henry)
Canada; Ham, George H. (George Henry), 1847-1926; Journalists -- Canada -- Biography
I knew that the Governorship was the Senator’s ambition, so when I
reached the Press Gallery I told the boys that “Senator Schultz’s
appointment to the Manitoba governorship was being favorably
considered.” This was sent off to the different newspapers with a little
stronger one to the Winnipeg _Free Press_, which had all along been
antagonistic to the Senator, and it came out with a corking editorial in
his favor. That settled it. The Conservative Government feared the
Liberal _Free Press_ more than any other western paper and the
appointment was shortly afterwards made.
It was nothing but the solemn truth I told the press boys about the
Senator’s elevation to the Governorship being favourably considered.
Both he and I were favourably considering it, weren’t we?
“Some One Blundered.”
Apropos of the unrestricted reciprocity proposal introduced by Sir
Richard Cartwright in 1888 it is interesting to recall the fact that
reply to Sir Richard—the first speech in criticism of the reciprocity
project—was delivered by Robert S. White, then, as now, editor in chief
of the Montreal _Gazette_. “Bob” White was but a lad in those days, and
had just succeeded his father as member for Cardwell. His speech, coming
immediately after Sir Richard had concluded, was brimful of information
regarding the trade of the country, and became the basis of the
anti-reciprocity argument of later days.
While personal friendship refused to observe party lines, personal
dislike often manifested itself among men who on the surface were
political friends. Edward Blake and Sir Richard Cartwright, for
instance, as has already been mentioned, were not at all friendly. Mr.
Blake did not like Sir Richard’s unrestricted reciprocity proposition,
and Sir Richard thought Mr. Blake overdid it when he made his great
attack upon the Orange Bill on March 17. This Orange question, by the
way, was a thorn in the side to more persons than one. Mr. McMullen
found it to be such in his case during a bye-election in Wellington. On
his way to the village in which he was to speak, a scoundrel told him he
was going into quite a Catholic settlement. So he thought he would
improve the opportunity thus presented to him to win a few votes by
dwelling upon the attitude of the party towards the Orangemen. He had
not gone far when he experienced a decided coolness on the part of the
audience, following which there was an uproar which convinced him that
“some one had blundered.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account