EXCHANGES.
We notice among the exchanges of the Varsity,
of the University of Toronto, a lengthy article
signed "Canuck," which purports to be an ans
wer to an article published in the FREE LANCE
in February entitled "Why Should We Annex
Canada ;" which article he assumes is offensive
to Canadians.
He states that he was amused at the article and
jests at the ignorance which he says is displayed
in it ; yet as he proceeds he takes great care to
exaggerate on a large portion of the thought con
tained and to misconstrue the one and only ob
ject which the article presents. Nothing is more
apparent to us than that Canuck has long been
waiting for a plausible excuse to strut himself;
for he makes bold to mention that, "If the Yan
kee will keep his nose out of Canadian affairs for
a few years, we will give him a pretty hot race for
the commercial supremacy of this continent."
The only object for which our article was in
tended and the only thing which it tries to show,
is, that Canada should not be annexed to the U,
S. even if annexation were possible ; it criticises
Americans for entertaining a thought of annexa
tion ; it assumes that all such talk of annexation
as we mention, is but the gossip of unauthorized
men in an unofficial way ; in no instance does
it extend to Canada the hostility, the feeling of
her general inferiority, or the disrespect which he
claims that it does. Yet by his assumed inference
he has attempted to demonstrate what we haye
not submitted. He assumes that our article por
trays the population of Canada as composed of
"squatters," "shanty Men," "poor fishermen"
etc., and that if we chose, we could annex Canada
at any time at our own will. No imputation
could be. more misleading, as anyone can see who
reads both articles.
He challenges us to compare his government
with ours and tell which means government by
the people, which the freer from despotism and
tyranny, We do not need to answer his chal;
THE FREE LANCE.
lenge, for we only implied a difference between
the institutions of the two countries, and this dif
ference he admits in the wording of his challenge.
(He does not say anything about their other in
stitution ?)
Now Canuck, we admire you for the strides
which you say you have made during the last
twenty-five years; we have respect for your people ;
and while we would have better relations with
you, we never wished you in the family, be
cause we think it more congenial to have you at
a distance as you now are. We do not want to
strike you down now because we "fear the future."
Oh, no I Keep right on in your prosperity ; we
do not desire to disturb you. Do not fear I
However we will look over with you one of your
proffered points on which you seem so eager for
debate.
You say : "We have to remind you how badly
the (American) Eagle has had his feathers ruffled
every time he has attempted to prey upon our
heritage" ; and, "Let him (Uncle Sam) make the
slightest advance toward a trespass and he will
soon realize how faithfully the British Lion guards
the entrance."
Ha IHa 1 What bluster from a foster-child of
John Bull 1 Where have you been Canuck, every
time the "Eagle has had his feathers so badly
ruffled ?" You have been just where the Lion has
had his tail—between his hind feet. Where are
you now? Under his paw, eh 1 Then if he gives
you a chance to respire freely at times, how truly
you ought to say that he faithfully guards the en
trance (of your wind) Perhaps you forget how
equally well he guarded its exit in •
The recent issue of the North Carolina Uni
versity Magazine published an excellent article en
titled "The Negro must remain South." The
writer forcibly describes the havoc that would be
caused in the South by the forced emigration of
the negro. Ho says :
"Who can fortell the disasters and the ruin that
would follow in the retreating steps of the South
ern laborers ? Farm operations would be stopped