hide You are viewing an archived web page collected at the request of University of Alberta using Archive-It. This page was captured on 16:19:02 Dec 08, 2010, and is part of the HCF Alberta Online Encyclopedia collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page. Loading media information

Heritage Community Foundation Presents
Alberta Online Encyclopedia and Edukits

Home Edukit Team Comments Help Sitemap Teachers' Corner Student Zone The Famous 5 Heritage Edukit
Home »  Students Zone » Reading and Quotes » Nellie McClung » A Letter from Emily Murphy  

Students Zone


A Letter from Emily Murphy

11011 - 88 avenue
Edmonton, August 5, 1927
My Dear Mrs. McClung:

Enclosed you will find a copy of section 60 of the Supreme Court Act of Canada, R.C.S. 1906, Cap 139, with also a letter to the Governor General in Council, which letter I am asking you to be good enough to sign and return to me by registered mail as soon as possible.

You will recall that the National Council Of Women, The Women's Institutes, the Women's Church [sic] Temperance Union, University clubs and other of our organizations, in convention, submitted resolutions to the Honorable, Prince Minister at Ottawa requesting of him that women be admitted to the Senate of Canada, thus permitting us to secure our full enfranchisement.

As a result, with the approval of the Federal Cabinet, on June 25th, 1923, in the printed "Orders of the Day" a motion was submitted by the Hon. Senator McCoig of Chatham, Ont., asking the members of the Upper Chamber that an address might be graciously pleased to give his consent to the submission of a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America act, 1867, so that a "female person shall be deemed qualified to be summoned to the Senate if she reached the full age of thirty years, and is either a Natural born subject of the king, or a subject of the King naturalized under the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of any British Dominion or possession or of the Parliament of Canada."

When this motion was read in the Canadian Senate the Honorable Senator McCoig failed to speak to his motion; neither did he appear to speak upon the same at any subsequent day when it was called so that the motion was never discussed. Since then, this motion has not been placed before the House.

As four years have since elapsed, and as it is now held by a large and important body of opinion that such proposed amendment was not, and is not necessary, it has therefore become highly desirable that this matter be determined without further delay in order that the women of this Dominion—compromising approximately one-half of the electorate—may enjoy their full political rights on the same terms as these are, or maybe, enjoyed by man.

It may here be pointed out that while in 1923, women generally were gratified in having Senator McCoig's motions placed before the Senate of Canada, with a possible prospect of its being later submitted to the House of Commons for added appeal to his Majesty, we have now come to realize that the matter is one which cannot with any degree of fairness be submitted for decision to a body of male persons, many of whom have expressed themselves towards it in a manner that is distinctly hostile.

Undoubtedly, our proper procedure under these circumstances is to take advantage of a friendly recourse to the Supreme Court of Canada as provided for in Section 60 of the Supreme Court Act.

You will see by the copy of the Supreme Court Act which I enclose that "interested persons" may refer matters of law or fact touching the interpretation of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, or the constitutionality or interpretation of any Dominion or Provincial legislation, to the Governor-General in Council requesting that the matter at issue be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for its hearing and consideration.
Clause 6 of the same Act further provides for an appeal to His Majesty in Council from the advice or judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada should such an appeal be deemed desirable.

Clause 4 and 5 provide for the expenses and witnesses in such cases as pertain to constitutional matters.

You will recall that a constitutional interpretation was recently asked for by the Governor-General in Council concerning the Separate Schools question in Alberta.

This interpretation was without cost to this Province.
As the matter referred to in our letter to the Governor-General is purely a technical one, I have not thought it necessary to submit the matter to Canadian women generally, they having already endorsed the principle, but only to the few "interested persons" as specifically required by the Act, these being all from the Province of Alberta and women reasonably capable of giving an account of the principles that actuate them should they be required to do so.

The following are the names in alphabetical order, your own among them:—

Henrietta Edwards
Irene Parlby
Nellie L. McClung
Louise C. McKinney
Emily F. Murphy

I do not feel it even remotely necessary to urge upon you to the extreme desirability [sic] of your lending your much-valued influence to this matter, which is so closely allied with the political, social and philanthropic interest of all Canadian Women.

Yours very sincerely,
Emily F. Murphy


[<<back] [top]

Students Zone Readings & Quotes Navigation
Nellie McClung
Purple Springs
Anti-Suffrage Reasoning
Women on Homesteads
Woman Suffrage Bill
Letter from Emily Murphy
Emily Murphy
Henrietta Muir Edwards
Irene Parlby
Louise McKinney

Copyright © 2002 Heritage Community Foundation All Rights Reserved