LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1198, 5 August 1911, Page 13

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

-- i! 1-. EDERALIST FOLLY." Sir,- 'or widely we may differ on the of Federation, wo are agreed thai Uio question is worth discussing. It is very difficult to find time for newspaper correspondence during the session, but' your very interesting and outspoken leader ol to-day prompts mo to make timo lor a letter. / Ton deny flic truth of my statement thin -Now w.i.and would be as truly represented in an imperial I'ariianient, as alurlljovougli is in Ine i\ew Zealand 1 arliamonl'. in spito of your statement that "the analogy iails at every point, 1 think tni) analogy holds. W nen arrangemints were being made for tho represcutation of Man'jorougli in tbc laiiia.ment ot New Zealand i can easily imagine the people of Marlborough saying: "We will not join; wo shall have oniy one representative out of many. Our 'interests will I'aereloro be fconstantly overlooked. -Moreover this 'outside' body will have the power to tax us. Tho taxes will bo used to develop the country by roads, and biidges and in other ways, and owing to our miserable minority other Parliaments of Now Zealand will bo developed at our expense." And there would have been some point' and truth in. their statement. As a matter of fact, I believe thai the interests of Marlborough havo been overlooked in the interests ot more strongly represented parts of isow Zealand. For tho point to note is, that thanks to the fact that our Parliament is £0 largely a roads and bridges, and railway Parliament, thero is a serious conflict of interest between, say, Marlborough and other provinces. This conflict is induced by "geographical, social and com-, mercial/' and provincial fact's. But where would be tho conflict of iutorest between New Zealand and the other nations represented in the Imperial Parliament. That Parliament would exist chiefly for purposes of defence and every portion of the Empire has a common interest' in defence, and t'hauks to the and traditional means by which : that defence has always been maintained by Britain, viz,, by seeking out the enemy and destroying him wherever. found. All parts of the Empire would bo equally well served. Tho analogy, I again venture to say, holds. Tho community of interest would be very great; t'ho conflict of interest very slight. I do not follow vou in your statement that if state rights "are ever to tower to' disruptive strength, disruption will come whatever is done." That statement seems to mo ludicrously, incorrect. Has it proved true of America? It is true there was an attempt at disruption, but it did not succeed. And the point is that in a liberally constituted Federation the very wish to disrupt disappears. In a Federation tho Federal Government in time secures for itself an affection and devotion that in a non-federated group of nations is felt for the $tate only; meet a Virginian anywhere in. tho world loday and ask him what ho is. "An American" lie will promptly answer. Ask a New Zealander, and tho chances ■ even now are that he will answer "A New Zealander," and in another fifty years, unless Federation comes, he. would never dream of answering anything else. A Federal Government so maintains and advocates the Imperial interests, so fosters Imperial community of interest, so inspires and educates tho Imperial spirit that a citizen becomes increasingly possessed with the belief that tho Empire is greater than, the State. Whero tnero .is no federation, State loyally increases,, and loyalty to the Empire decays. Then you proceed, to make ,an extraordinary statement. "The case from history is all against tho Federationists." Has 'Federation been a failure in America? No 0110 who knows what Federation saved the States from could say that. Has Federation been a failure in Canada? Has it been a failure in Germany? Has it been a failure in Switzerland? Can you point to any group of nations which have long remained in union without Federation?, ,

Your Rfllßfl's'/Miestion: "Did doivw inpr the Boer war?" reveals tho fallacy that seems' to me to lib at the bottom of all objections to Federation. "What has been will ibe," says tho anti-Fcderation-ist. "Tho British nations , hare assisted one another in tho past, therefore thoy will do so in the future. They havo dono -n-ithout Federation in tho past, thereforo they can tlo" without it in tho future. They ,have successfully resisted the attacks of other nalions in tho past, therefore thoy will bo successful in tho future." But tomplacency with what is and has been lias often been tho forerunner of disaster.—l am, ctc., ALEX. S. MALCOLM. ■ August 4, 1911. [We discuss Mr. Malcolm's letter in our editorial columns.J t