"In the panic of the following March (1918 after Pa.s.schendaele) he finds the Corps is being torn to pieces, its divisions hurried here, there and everywhere; orders given and countermanded and then issued again. He protests strongly; the Canadian corps whose value is tested, must be kept together; and he wins out." . . .
"Is all this insubordination? If so, it is a quality that makes for victory. The average Canadian is always willing to "take a chance"
because he has confidence in himself. And the Corps Commander is very much of a Canadian."
The author does not criticize Currie, though he had so good an opportunity. In telling so well the wonderful story of that last hundred days and so explicitly glorifying the Commander whose best work of the war was done during that period, he gives us no perspective. Is it not just to admit that though the four reduced Canadian divisions--with certain attachments--had defeated forty-seven German divisions, they had conquered divisions terribly more reduced than their own and absolutely without reserves in either men or materials and devoid of the last vestige of morale? The great bluff was about to break. It was due to have broken sooner.
When the armistice came all the armies but the Canadians laid down their arms. Currie had not finished his work. He had planned the whole hundred days, beginning with Cambrai, and the apex of that achievement after the breaking of the infallible Hindenburg line, was the recapture of Mons. He was once more "insubordinate". He did not seem to pay respect to the armistice. His men had often said that they wanted to fight Heine on German soil. Denied that, at least they wanted a chance to be part of the army of occupation, as far east as Cologne. Currie could never have ordered an unwilling army--not that army unwilling--to march 150 miles into Germany. He had an army of conquest, not of armistice. But the stereopticon and the slides:
What was to be done with this soldier at home? How could he be re-established in civil life? Thanks to the Administration"s predicament in trying to please both the General and his enemies, here was the worst D.S.C.R. problem of the lot. Thanks to McGill University, the predicament was removed.
A sagacious professor in McGill who knows by experience what it is to get the ear of the public, said when Currie was appointed President that almost the entire faculty were opposed to him because the idea was so ridiculous. That professor now alleges proudly that faculty, students and management are all convinced that Currie is a wonderful President; that he has revolutionized all existing ideas about the headship of a university, that he understands even the academic mind; that the _esprit de corps_ of McGill is such as it never was.
In short, n.o.body is left to remark--
"I say, what a pity Geddes left us in the lurch!"
They are making a new stereopticon for that slide.
A COAT OF MANY COLOURS
SIR JOHN WILSON
After a life of wearing Joseph"s coat, Sir John Willison, ex-editor of the _Toronto Globe_ and of the _News_, finds himself President of the National Reconstruction a.s.sociation. Programme--to reconstruct Canada, beginning in 1918, after fifty years of Confederation.
A supercilious editor once asked why on such an a.s.sociation no farmer had been appointed. The answer was simple enough. Sir John was born a farmer. He used to wield a handspike at logging bees in Huron County, Ont. Why no Liberals? But Sir John used to be the leading Liberal of unelected Canada. Why no professor of political economy to represent the great universities who are always supposed to be reconstructing a nation?
Simple again. Sir John himself once conducted a university of culture, economics and general information known as the _Toronto News_. In fact there was no need of an a.s.sociation at all. Sir John Willison was sufficient unto the day.
One finds it tolerably easy to be sarcastic about Sir John Willison, because for many years he was to some of us the sort of man that compelled a sincere, almost idolatrous admiration. In this also he is more adept than the average man. He himself once idolized Sir Wilfrid Laurier in two volumes; but a few years before he turned all his political guns on the French-Canadian Premier to get him out of power for good.
In all Canada there has never been a more versatile character; never one who after a _volte face_ in politics could turn with such poise and dignity upon any critic cradled in the foundations of belief and ask, "Well, what"s new?"
From his crisp manner of speaking and a certain austerity of manner, I used to think that Sir John was in a measure inscrutable. He had such a curt way of summoning a reporter, as once,--
"Never," he began when the culprit had got into the corridor facing the editor-in-chief, "never, when interviewing a man in his own home, say anything about the furniture."
Born a Conservative and a farmer, Willison became on the _Globe_ Canada"s greatest unelected Liberal. He conserved Liberalism. On the _Globe_ he held the balance between the Free Traders who believed only in reciprocity and Brastus Wiman, who with Goldwin Smith made Taft a mere plagiarist when he said that Canada was an "adjunct" of the United States. It was Willison"s attempt to consider commercial union on its merits that made the _Globe_ seem like a mark for the annexationists, at a time when the high priest of the movement in Canada had the effrontery to remain a citizen of the nation which he was openly trying to sell at a bargain counter. The man who kept the _Globe_ from becoming an annex to Goldwin Smith in 1891 had an experience that would fit any man to become a protection-tariff Chairman of Reconstruction, and to remember the sirens that tempted Ulysses.
n.o.body could have predicted in those days that the great editor of the _Globe_ would live to become first an Independent, next a Tory, and at the last a Liberal-Unionist. And perhaps none of these transformations would have been necessary if Sir George Ross had not tried the trick of "32 years in the saddle" from the days of Mowat; to do which and to remain politically virtuous was an impossible feat, even though the Premier of Ontario was a director of the _Globe_. Ross remained director, and also Premier. But it seems that Mr. Willison saw in such a dual role a greater inconsistency than even he deemed to be worthy of so brilliant a man. As he could not remove the director, he took what seemed to be a providential opportunity to remove the Premier.
The reconstructed _Toronto News_ was the opportunity. The elimination of Ross was the first result. The removal of Laurier was the necessary sequel. The first was a pleasure. The second must have been a pang.
Because of the first, in place of Sir George Ross, Willison had as frequent visitor to his sanctum James Pliny Whitney, the new Premier of Ontario, "honest enough to be bold and bold enough to be honest." From that to Toryism was merely opening a door. It took the new Tory editor eight years to remove his old idol Laurier, the result of which was a sort of intense and bigoted animosity to the Province of Quebec which Sir John is now learning to overcome. When the Tory _News_ became a Northcliffe Imperialist organ it was inevitable that Sir John should convert his common hostility to the western Laurier-Liberals into a polite suspicion of the Radicals who were becoming Agrarians.
When finally, weary of mere politics in which he was our greatest journalistic expert by instinct and experience Sir John left the _News_, he was free to engage in work of a more practical character than writing, and to become Chairman of the Government"s most important branch of active agenda outside of professional politics.
In all these Protean changes of makeup, if not of character, Sir John Willison has never abandoned two early habits; lawn bowling and reading the _Globe_. He is an expert in both. Bowling vexes him least, because its rules never change. The _Globe_ gives him pangs because alas! it is now engaged in the unpardonable effort to merge the Liberals with the National Progressives as a greater Liberal Party.
Inconsistency may be the evolution of greatness. Inconstancy never. The _Globe_ of a certain date in June, 1921, contained a front page display of the Agrarian bye-election victory in Medicine Hat. On another date there was an editorial once again advising the Agrarians to make common cause with Liberals against the common enemy, Meighenism, or as it might be said, Willisonism.
Perusing the _Globe_ in his Reconstruction office, Sir John glances up--leisurely at a spot on the wall, next to the portrait of Sir John A.
Macdonald. Like Macbeth"s dagger, he sees a cold, organizing face smiling like Mona Lisa, fair at Sir John; the face of T. A. Crerar.
The Levite of Reconstruction shakes his fist.
"Down with you," he mutters. "Avaunt! I"ll have none of you. There"s nothing under Medicine Hat--except what Kipling said, "all h.e.l.l for a bas.e.m.e.nt," Natural gas, Crerar, not a test case at all. Oh, no. Too near the border."
Sir John yawns and peruses a proof of the 745th pamphlet issued from Reconstruction, total of nearly seven million copies paid for not by taxation of the people, but inferentially by tariffs. Probably a very patriotic minority read these Willison bulletins aiming to reconstruct the country by putting a crimp in the exportation of the Canadian dollar, looking after welfare work in factories, women and children, grappling with unemployment, helping to change over industry from war to peace, aiming to "stabilize" the nation, to curb that team of wild horses, Bolshevism and Agrarianism, and generally to keep Canada from going to perdition.
In spite of Sir John, in 1919 and 1920, people bought Canada almost bankrupt on the exchanges. Hence among the items in the cheapening list may be placed the Canadian dollar which is now worth about 89 cents in New York. That is what happens to the dollar when it goes away from home and plays prodigal son. What Sir John works to see is Canadian commodities crossing the border and the Yankee dollars coming back in exchange.
Here is one of the greatest moral issues of the age for this nation.
Even the preachers, if they could see us put up the barriers against luxury imports from the United States--said to be such a wicked nation--would breathe more easily. People so often buy sin done up in dutiable packages. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1921, Canadians went into debt to the United States over a million a day--adverse exchange. Nearly $400,000,000 in one year spent for Yankee goods more than Yankeedom spent buying goods from us.
And now comes the need for the rationalizing philosophy of Sir John Willison, truly our most versatile expert on tariffs from the _Globe_ reciprocity down to the Reconstruction. Beginning in 1917 with Foster"s "economic unity" in North America, a friendly Democratic tariff had let Canada send certain natural products into the United States free of duty.
Private interests found it profitable to handle Canadian trade, much of it in transit to Europe in a state of high demand. The democratic element in Sir John must have approved that. Grit as he used to be, Sir John must believe in letting the great United States practise free-trade if it be so disposed. Those good Democrats! Had they not enacted the Underwood tariff, what a mountainous load must have been imposed upon the Atlantean shoulders of Reconstruction!
Which brings us to the eve of Dominion Day, 1921. Sir John was not bowling; he was reading the _Round Table_ for June--at least if not he should have been--an article on the meeting of the "Imperial Cabinet".
"Mischievous t.i.tle!" he mutters. "It"s an Imperial Conference of Premiers. John S. Ewart will be sure to make a kingdom article out of that. Very ill-advised. Er--Come!"
"Evening paper, Sir John," says the boy.
Sir John takes up the paper and is at once confronted by an item which convinces him that if ever Canada needed protection from the United States, now is the time. The item is the repeal of the Underwood tariff.
Accustomed for life to unpleasant sensations from printed pages, his face gives no sign of emotion. Swiftly he reads through, flings the paper down and looks up. At once he rises, glaring coldly at the Crerar palimpsest on the wall. Again that Mona Lisa exporting smile, as the lips seem to say:
"Well, Sir John--what will be the Republican Reconstruction price of the Canadian dollar now?"
"Bah!" Sir John snorts into a handkerchief, like a Tory squire. "That tariff, Sir, is not a menace, nor a prophecy of agrarian victory at the polls. It is a challenge to this nation. Canada will not let down the bars. We shall put them higher! Keep the Canadian dollar in Canada.
Sell our natural products to Britain. Build up our towns and our industries. Utilize our great water powers, the cheapest power in the world. Use our raw material; our manufacturing experience gained in the war. Develop the home market. Sell more to ourselves and spend our incomes in countries that do not put up economic barriers against our products. Without some adequate protection, sir, we are economically as extinct as the Dodo. There"s but one alternative--commercial autonomy from the United States or commercial annexation. n.o.body but a lunatic or an Agrarian would ever doubt which of these we shall choose--eh, what"s that you say?"
The portrait chuckles. An uplifted hand appears in the unframed picture.
"I said, Sir John--put the repeal of the Underwood tariff under your Medicine Hat."
In sudden fury Sir John flings the _Round Table_ at the place where the picture vanished.
This may be a whimsical conclusion to the study of a personality so perplexing and vagarious as Sir John Willison. But he himself, having a high sense of humour, will appreciate its psychological justice as much as he regrets its historical inaccuracy. Sir John has always aimed at being a big Canadian, and he has usually succeeded. He did his share of contribution to right thinking about the war, as he did in vicarious action when he lost one of his two sons in that struggle. He could not do otherwise, because in spite of his bewildering superficial changes of coat, when even his detractors almost admired the dignity with which he changed it, Sir John, the Tory at heart, has always been a loyal servant of his country. Without him the story of political journalism in Canada would be a thing of shreds and patches.
He has at various times wielded an immense power usually in the direction of shrewd, sane thinking about national affairs. No Canadian editor of his time so thoroughly mastered its intricate problems. He has a faculty of clear, constructive thinking and a fine style of writing. With no college education he became a cultured journalist--which is sometimes an anomaly--though he never showed any zeal for the "humanities" and never knew much about that peculiar sociological phenomenon called the proletariat.
Since he drew away from the farm Sir John has never had a desire to return, even in sympathy. With a fine sense of humour he has never relished reminiscences of the backwoods and the smoke of the log heaps.
His published "Reminiscences" are a fine contribution to our political history, but they show no real sympathy with the rude pioneer life from which the writer came and to which he owes a debt that he could very well discharge, if he would write a book about the social and craft life of the Canadian farm as it was in the Victorian Era. There is more national vitality in the story of that than there is in the programme of the National Reconstruction a.s.sociation. Sir John has a true sympathy with that life, because he knows it has been at the root of all his own big Canadianism in all its forms. He is one of the kindliest men alive and he writes with great discernment and dignity. Let him stop writing Reconstruction bulletins and do something of more value to the country, so that the older enthusiasm of men who used to think he was Canada"s greatest editor may not althogether die.