Miss Macphail's Letter

Miss Macphail's Letter
Blockade against the Post Office estimates, and the Divorce Bill have occupied another week.
A fresh storm broke over Mr. Veniot, Postmaster General, Tuesday afternoon. It concerned the conduct of one, W. F. Griffith, who was junior post office inspector in the St. John district. In the case of, two post offices, called Dupey's Comers, and Shediac, payments were in arrears. These back payments had been paid over to W. P. Griffith who did not turn them in to the Department for several months after he received them, in the meantime he appears to have been promoted, rather than censured for his conduct, and also had his salary increased. Mr, Veniot stated that the man finally turned the money over, and that his rating according to ability was very high.
Mr. Veniot has done a number of things open to grave criticism. Every time the Government tries to move to supply on his estimates, someone moves an amedament[sic], which takes the nature of a Want of Confidence Motion. I wish it were possible to vote censure on one Minister and have him removed from the cabinet, if it were found necessary, and then the business of the House could proceed. With our present idea of Cabinet solidarity, one has to condemn the whole Cabinet or none, which to me does not make sense.
In regard to divorce, the Ottawa Citizen has an editorial on the subject, Wednesday, May 1st. Among other things it says:-
"Mr. Woodsworth and those other members of the Commons who have joined forces with him in keeping before Parliament the question of a more suitable tribunal in which petitions for divorce in Ontario shall be heard, have rendered signal service by the course they have pursued since the bill to establish a divorce court in this province was rejected, some time ago.—It is hard to see in what other way he could have done' what he has. No cause was ever served by remaining silent about it. It no further was heard regarding the rather discreditable system which now prevails, the hope of obtaining early reform would soon disappear. By forcing the House of Commons to face the issue squarely and discuss the glaring anomalies of the existing machinery for dealing with divorce in Ontario, Mr. Woods-worth is providing an opportunity by the most effective means at his disposal to expose to the light the conditions which he objects to and to which most fair minded citizens must object also.
In previous debates initiated in the House, Mr. Woodsworth has succeeded in revealing the inadequacy of Parliament as a forum for dealing in
(please turn to page 8)
[Page 8] certain legal aspects of divorce. Few people including some members, really knew just what powers Parliament has in this vital matter. It is now generally known that Parliament is empowered only to sever the marriage tie; and to sever it on one ground only, that of adultery. It cannot do anything about the custody of children, nor about alimony for a wife. These things have to be dealt with through separate civil action in the courts—if the party seeking relief can afford it. It is extreemly[sic] difficult to believe that members and others who have hitherto opposed a divorce court for Ontario— rather unthinkingly, it is to be feared can remain unconvinced after noting what has been said in the House during recent days. Of course, the antagonism to divorce "on principle" explains much, but surely it is realized by now that the principle of divorce has nothing to do with the present movement to create a divorce court in this province. It is a matter of providing an adequate tribunal with all safeguards for seemliness and dignity, in place of the present machinery which it has been amply demonstrated, is far from being a credit to us. Such a court would not make divorce easier. It is conceivable indeed that it would make it harder.
Canada has been practically convinced that a divorce court for Ontario is desirable and that old patronage methods are out worn and any Minister of the Crown practising them is too heavy a weight for the Government to carry.
I have been watching for some time a Bill sponsored by W. J. Ward of Dauphin, Manitoba, asking that woman be given the right to establish a legal domicile in her own right. As it is she cannot establish a legal domicile apart from her husband. It is just part of the old business of thinking a woman as something less than a person. Rumors[sic] has it that Mr. Lapointe, Minister of Justice, was against the Bill. He said it was just opening the door! I suppose he fears it would let woman completely out of the enclosure which has surrounded her through the centuries. Mr. Ward, who is a Progressive liberal, dropped the Bill. Next year if he is not willing to take it up, someone who is, must do it. Many of the legal profession are very anxious that this Bill should go through. They have the utmost difficulty serving their women clients; because of this old stupidity.
The members of the Women's Internaional[sic] League, United States section, were a splendid group. I almost feared addressing them because for so long they have applied themselves to the subject of Internationalism. I needn't have felt that way they were so kind and tolerant. The President is Emily Green Batch who was for years Professor in Wellesley College; the chairman was Mrs. Maud Richard of Pennyslvania[sic], who with her husband, owns coal mines and runs them for the benefit of the miners taking out of them only a living. She had much to say on the deplorable conditions among the miners in Pennsylvania. I had an opportunity of quite a long conversation with Kathleen Blake, a well-known New York educationalist who travelled last year in Russia with the John Dewey party. She was much impressed by the great strides education was making in Russia and the interesting educational experiments going on there.
One of the cleverest of the younger women was Dorothy Detzer who lobbies in Congress while the House is in session, supporting peace in every possible way. A very beautiful aged woman was Mrs. Grace Hoffman White of New York who in the old days worked with Mrs. Pankhurst for sufferage, leaving her luxurious home on this continent to endure the real privation of that campaign.
Oddly enough the W.I.L. of United States has drawn to itself many wealthy as well as many intellectual women. The W.I.L. are anxious that the United States shall become a member of the world court and the League of Nations. They favor international agreements and not merely for the reduction of disarmaments, but for the fundamental change of the whole type and purpose of armed forces, giving them a purely police character and abandoning manoeuvers, weapons, etc.. directed to the making of war. They believe that the Department of State should be a peace department, doing everything possible at home and abroad to create good will. They desire an agreement with Great Britain in regard to sea law that will be acceptable to both. They are against the imperialistic tendencies of their country and are also against tariff and export of capital not in the best interests of international harmony.
—AGNES C. MACPHAIL.
Friday, May 3, 1929