The Craftsmanship of Bias: Sedition and the Winnipeg Strike Trial 1919
![handle is hein.journals/manitob14 and id is 9 raw text is: THE CRAFTSMANSHIP OF BIAS SEDITION
AND THE WINNIPEG STRIKE TRIAL 1919
Desmond H. Brown*
The Russell Case
On November 26, 1919, five months after the Winnipeg General Strike
came to its bitter and inconclusive end, Mr. Justice Metcalfe' of the Man-
itoba Court of King's Bench began to hear the state trial of Robert Boyd
Russell2 who had been one of the strike leaders.3 The accused was charged
with, inter alia, six counts of seditious conspiracy. Among other items, the
long and verbose indictment alleged that he had conspired with others to
bring on unlawful general strikes, by causing workers to break [their]
contracts and desert from their service and duties; but the most serious
accusation was that the strike was intended to be a step in a revolution
against the constituted form of government in Canada.'4 Essentially, Rus-
sell's defence was that when the employers of the striking Winnipeg metal
workers had refused to deal with the Metal Trades Council, which claimed
to be the bargaining agency for the workers, the general strike had been
called for the purpose of enforcing the principle of collective bargaining.5
Hence, stripped of all the verbiage of the indictment and the trial, the
question at issue was the intent of the accused.6
The trial was a long and gruelling contest which was marked by many
acrimonious exchanges between opposing counsel. Often the Judge became
involved, and at one point sent for the sheriff to restore order in the court
Professor. Department of History. University of Alberta. I would like to thank Professors R.C. MacLeod. W.F Bowker and
J.C. Robb, who read this paper in draft and whose comments were detailed and cogent.
I. Thomas Llewellin Metcalfe (1870-1922): educ. in local Manitoba schools; articled with various Winnipeg and Portage law
Firms; called to Manitoba Bar 1894. partner in several Winnipeg law Firms; appointed member of Dominion Statute Law
Revision Commission 1902: appointed to King's Bench in 1909 and in 1921 elevated to Manitoba Court of Appeal. Met-
calfe was a senior official of the Liberal Party in Manitoba and a skilled stump speaker in election campaigns prior to his
appointment to the bench. This information was derived from the biographical file on Metcalfe in the Archive of Western
Canadian Legal History, University of Manitoba, Faculty of Law. Winnipeg-
2. (1888-1964): edac. as a machinist on the Clydeside. emigrated to Canada in 1911 and settled in Winnipeg where he became
a labour politician and a member of the Socialist Party of Canada. a powerful and persuasive speaker and member of the
Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council, he returned to the labour movement after release from prison. He had a long career
as secretary of the One Big Union, a position he still held in 1948; a school in Winnipeg has been named in his honour. D.
C. Masters, The Winnipeg General Strike (2d ed. 1973) 3-4. 8 N. Penner. Winnipeg 1919 (2ed ed. 1975) 9.
3. Eight strike leaders were named in the indictment and were to have been tried jointly. However, the crown prosecutor
decided to proceed against Russell first on the grounds that the jury panel might be exhausted before a jury was chosen if
the eight were tried together, because of the number of challenges the defence would have had. The Winnipeg Tribune.
November 27. 1919. at 3, col.2. The remaining seven defcndents were tried together early in the new year. They comprised
a distinguished group. One was to serve as an M.P. for Fifteen years. Three were elected to the Manitoba Legislature, and
one was to be elected Mayor of Winnipeg for seven terms of office. The remaining two men were to become senior civil
servants. For a discussion of the careers of the seven see Masters. ibid., at 146-150.
4. The King vs. R.B. Russell. Indictment. November 4. 1919. Counts 2. 3 and 4. Case No. 312171-8, Prothonotary's Office.
Manitoba Law Courts, Winnipeg.
5. The Winnipeg Tribune, December 19. 1919. at 2, col.2 and 3.
6. Although Russell and six of his co-defendents were found guilty, two eminent historians, after an exhaustive analysis of
the strike and its antecedents have concluded that its purpose was indeed what it purported to be. an effort to secure the
principle of collective bargaining. Masters. Winnipeg General Strike. p. 134, David J. Bercuson. Confrontation at Winnipeg
(Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. 1974), p.178. It is also of interest to note that both during and after the strike
many Dominion M.Ps believed that the question at issue was collective bargaining. See generally: Can. H. of C. Debates,
2nd. sess. 13th Parl. pp. 3004-65 (June 2. 1919). p.3845 (June 23. 1919). But see particularly the speech by Peter Heenan.
Can. H. of C. Debates. Ist sess. 15th Parl.. pp. 4004-12 (June 2, 1926). Heenan who was the Minister of Labour in the
short-lived Mackenzie King administration of 1925-26 had become heir to the Departmental records covering the period
of the strike, apparently through an oversight on the part of the (then) Minister of Labour. Gideon Robertson (Ibid., at
4004). Having such sensitive internal evidence to work with, Heenan blew away much of the case against the strikers and
repeatedly made the point that collective bargaining had been their main objective.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/manitob14&div=7&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Craftsmanship of Bias: Sedition and the Winnipeg Strike Trial 1919
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most