“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

(An article of Louis Even, first published in the March 1, 1958 issue of the Vers Demain Journal.)

The 1935 election

In the fall of 1935, Canada was going through a federal election. Mr. Bennett's Conservative Government was achieving its 5-year term. The great Depression, begun in the fall of 1929, was still rampant.

This crisis was in no way due solely to the Conservative Party. It was a worldwide crisis that touched all Western nations, no matter what their political regimes or parties in office. In Canada, it had begun under the Liberal Government of Mackenzie King, and it was because of this crisis that the electors replaced the Liberals by the Conservatives in the 1930 elections. When people are discontent, they change the party in office.

Whatever the attacks of the Liberal orators against the Tories were, Mackenzie King knew perfectly well that the Depression was in no way a case of which party held power. He knew very well that the Depression had its origin in the restriction of bank credit, causing a scarcity of money in circulation. He was well aware of the fact that an appropriate mechanism to issue credit, for the interests of the people, could supply the population with all the requisite money to answer their needs.

Moreover, Mackenzie King had previously written a book, Industry and Humanity, published in 1918, one year before his election as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He had written in that book, among other things: “Money consists only in figures engraved on metal, printed on paper, or inscribed in bank ledgers.” So why let a whole nation fall into a depression, because of a vitiated control of these figures?

Mackenzie King understood all the importance of this issue. So, right at the beginning of the 1935 election campaign, he made remarkable statements, as leader of the Liberal Party:

“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.

“The Liberal Party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. The Liberal Party declares itself in favour of the immediate establishment of a duly constituted national bank for the control of the issue of money in terms of public needs. The flow of money must be in relation with the domestic, social, and industrial needs of the Canadian people.”

The interests of the money monopoly are in stark contradiction with the welfare of the people. Mackenzie King knew that also, but apparently determined to challenge this financial domination, he emphatically declared, speaking at Saskatoon:

“If my party is returned to power, we shall make good our monetary policy in the greatest battle between the money power and the people Canada has ever seen.”

After the election

The ballots cast on October 14, 1935, gave the Liberal Party an unprecedented majority in the House of Commons. In a broadcast statement on the evening of this Liberal victory, Mackenzie King reiterated his commitment to curb the dictatorship of finance:

“The election is an endorsement of the Liberal view that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen.

“It is a clear verdict against the private ownership and control of a national bank; and in favour of a duly constituted national bank, for the control of currency issued in terms of public needs. There can be no mistaking the demand for restoring to the Government of Canada control over the credit and currency issue.

“As the campaign proceeded, the issue of the control, by the people, of all functions of Government through their representatives in Parliament, and not by any power, became increasingly clear. The electorate has declared that a responsible ministry, not organized finance and the international money power, is to control all State affairs.

Why, Mr. King?

These words remain just as clear after as before the election: the financial tyranny must be stopped; the people must obtain, from a bank that truly belongs to them, all the requisite money to put the productivity of our nation at the service of their domestic, social, and industrial needs.

One may wonder why, after such plain and repeated statements, there was no follow-up from the Liberal leader; and why, even with the Bank of Canada fully nationalized, the people were unable to obtain, and have not yet obtained, the full financial means to make the available physical possibilities serve their public and private needs. Why, once in office, did Mackenzie King immediately appoint as Finance Minister the chairman of the Barclay International Bank, Mr. Charles Dunning, who was not even a Member of Parliament, who did not even run at the election? Who imposed this choice upon Mackenzie King?... So, we are still waiting today for “the greatest battle between the money power and the people Canada has ever seen.”

The previous article was written by Louis Even in 1958. In another article he wrote in 1952, Mr. Even revealed some interesting information on the same subject. Here is the conclusion of this article:

These statements of Mackenzie King had created a sensation back in 1935, at least in the circles informed about the money and credit dictatorship. A few years later, an Australian who was touring Canada, Mrs. Bearne, asked and obtained an interview with Prime Minister Mackenzie King. Put at ease by the affability of the Prime Minister, she asked him: “Could I ask you a straightforward question, without formalities?”

Makenzie King: “Certainly, Madam.”

Mrs. Bearne: “Mr. Prime Minister, there are many citizens in Australia, and certainly elsewhere, that were thrilled in 1935, when they learned of your statement about the control of money and credit, and the necessity to restore this control to the nation if one wants a true democracy. We were saying to ourselves: `At last, here is the Prime Minister of a nation of the British Commonwealth that will shake up the dictatorship that has done so much harm to all the civilized universe.' We were already acclaiming you the greatest statesman in modern times. Why should our hope not be fulfilled yet?”

Mackenzie King: “Madam, we do what we can.”

According to pressure

Mackenzie King knew, but “couldn't”, or thought he couldn't. Where did the opposition come from, other than from those who enjoy the control of money and the power that ensues? What support, what pressure did Mr. King lack to make this change, other than the support, the pressure from an informed population that wants to free itself?

“Governments act according to the pressure exercised on them,” said U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

One may regret that public figures know, but do not act consequently; but one must also admit that the citizens of nations that pretend to be democratic have not done their part yet. It is this observation that guides the Social Crediters of the “Michael” Journal in their action