NEW ZEALAND AND FEDERATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12402, 16 January 1901, Page 3

NEW ZEALAND AND FEDERATION.

THE VIEWS OF AUSTRALIAN STATESMEN. INTERVIEWS WITH LEADING MEN. [From Oto Correspondent.] SYDNEY, Jan. 4. Following up the interviews previously reported, your commissioner has waited upon several of the visitors to the celebrations whose views are of interest upon the question of New Zealand coming into the Federation. On every hand expressions of the wannest desire to welcome New Zealand into the Federation are made, and there can be no doubt, judging from the views of those in a position to form an opinion, that should the island colony decide to throw in her lot with the Commonwealth, she would be warmly received. SIR SAMUEL GRIFFITH, CHIEF JUSTICE OP' QUEENSLAND. One of the foremost men in Australia in the earlier days of the Federation movement, and one who took a very prominent part in the Conference of 1890, and the Convention of 1891, was Sir Samuel Griffith, then Premier of Queensland. Sir Samuel, who is a guest of the Government at the Hotel Australia, when interviewed, was pleasantly reminiscent of the New Zealand Statesmen who had visited Sydney in those days, and he spoke with friendly appreciation of the work done by those veterans Sir George Grey, Sir Harry Atkinson and Captain Russell. He was pleased to learn that the New Zealand Government (had apappoiixted a Commissioner to consider the whole question of federation, but when asked to express an opinion as to the prospects and advisability of New Zealand entering the Federation, he said he preferred not to speak. He would, as every Federalist would, he was assured, welcome the colony as one of the group, but he thought it would be an impertinence on his part to offer an opinion as to the advisability of such a course, for the reason that he knew nothing of New Zealand or its conditions. Asked' whether he would be prepared to give favourable consideration to a request for concessions in view of local conditions, he stated that it was not his intention to go for a seat in the Federal Parliament, and consequently he would have no voice in the matter. It is current rumour that Sir Samuel is an aspirant for the Federal Chief Justiceship, but there are probably younger men with more pressing claims.

HON N. E. LEWIS, PREMIER OF TASMANIA. Mr Lewis is one of the younger school of Australian politicians have come rapidly to the front in recent years. He was a member of the 1897 Convention, in his capacity, if I remember rightly, of Leader of the Tasmanian Opposition, and though he did not occupy such a prominent position as Sir Edward Bred don, lie made Ms mark as a thoughtful man, who would yet occupy a leading position. The chances of politics have brought him his opportunity earlier than was then expected, and he is probably the youngest Premier of the group now in Sydney. When I met him he was enjoying a friendly tete-a-tete at the ‘Australia with Mr Seddon, Mr Carroll and other New Zealanders, in a group which was afterwards augmented by Sir W. Lyne and Mr Kingston. The views of Mr Lewis should prove of special interest to New Zealanders, for Ms colony, though nearer to the mainland than New Zealand, is still isolated, and its conditions are somewhat analogous to those of the latter. On the general question of the possibility of New Zealand coming in, Mr Lewis said he would welcome her accession with the greatest pleasure, and he subsequently reiterated this statement, giving as Ms reason the fact that Tasmania, being an isolated colony, would be pleased to have what he might call an ally in the Pariament. He would not go so far as to say that he feared any danger from the combinations of the larger colonies, but he would feel more secure with New Zealand amongst them. Asked as to whether he, if elected to the Federal Parliament, would be a party to the favourable consideration of the claims of New Zealand for special concessions, if such should be desired, he stated that this would not be passible, a s he did mot intend to enter the Federal Padliament, It may be explained that Mr Lewis is just a little chagrined at the turn events have taken, respecting the composition of the first Federal Ministry. He was cabled by Sir William Lyne, asking him to come to Sydney to meet the Premiers in Conference, and he left Tasmania with that object; but on arrival in Melbourne he found the whole position altered. Mr Barton had accepted the task of forming a Ministry, and he was in the cold. He thought Tasmania had superior claims to those of West Australia, as she had been among the first* to accept the Federal ideas, whereas the western colony had stood out till the last. It is hardly to be expected that Mr Lewis should give up the Premiei’ship of his own colony to become one of the rank and file of the Federal Parliament.

On the subject of the possibility of reciprocal trade relations being established between New Zealand and the Commonwealth, Air Lewis was able to give some interesting information. He was not, he explained, in Tasmanian politics when an, attempt was made to establish reciprocity between Tasmania and Victoria, ■which must have been more than fifteen years back. ' But I presume you remember some of the circumstances, Mr Lewis?—Well, I remember this much: that the attempt failed. An agreement was come to' between our Government and that of Mr James Service, in Victoria, to the effect that, in return for the removal by us of the duties on Victorian sheep and cattle, Victoria should remit the duties on Tasmanian fruit and timber. This agreement was really in the nature of a treaty between the respective Governments, subject to Parliamentary ratification, and our Government carried out their p art of the contract by getting Parliament to remit the duties on Victorian sheep and cattle, which was done. When the subject came before the Victorian Parliament, however, the timber trade made such a fuss that the Ministry could not cany out their proposals, and the duties were not remitted in consequence. Of course, we at once re-imposed our duties, and there the matter ended. Then you have no real experience of the operation of a reciprocity treaty?—No; and I’m afraid you never would get it. The whole thing boils down to this : that one party to the contract, or both, enter into it with the hope of getting advantage, and when it is found that one side or tire other does not gain by the operation, it draws out. What can be done to make such, a schema binding?—Well, I hardly know off-hand how you could secure any sort of permanence. So far as I know, nothing was done in the way of imposing a time limit—say, for a number of years; but perhaps that would meet the case. Yes, but assuming such a treaty to be entered into for a certain number 0 f years, and that one party finds after a time that the arrangement is working disadvaniageously, how would it act ? Would that party go on making a loss, or would it break the treaty?— That is rather a difficult matter to deal with. You see, we have never really got any treaty into operation, and I hardly know what basis could be. arranged. But it appears to me the whole thing must be voluntary, which means that either party may break it if it is found to act prejudicially. Otherwise, if it is made binding for a term, and one party is desirous of getting out, there will be friction, which would be worse than havn.g no treaty. And what chance do you think there would be of such a treaty between New Zealand and the Commonwealth ?—I am afraid that after the experience of the attempts made so far

the prospects are very far from favourable. Personally, I think there can be no reciprocity -without Intercolonial Freetradie, -which means Federation. HON SIR RICHARD CHAFFEY BAKER. One of the greatest authorities on what may bo termed the finer points of Federation, and one of the masters of the literature on the subject, is Sir Richard Chaffey Baker, K.C.M.G., President of the Legislative Council of South Australia. Sir Richard was a member of the 1891 Convention', and vice-president of the Convention of 1897, in the proceedings of which he took a very prominent and able part. He is the author of much literature on Federal matters, and has now running in the South Australian Press a series of articles 0 n the history of Federation in South Australia, which should form interesting reading to New Zealanders. He was, if I remember aright, one of the many past Premiers of his colony, of which ho has been a leading politician for a number of year on the Conservative side. In fact, his strongly Conservative views in the past brought him into hot conflict with the champion of ultra-democracy, Mr Kingston, and it may be remembered that the differences between these two doughty gentlemen became so acute that a horsewhip' was called into requisition to settle their differences, and a duel with pistols was actually arranged between them; Fortunately for Australian Federation 1 , it got no further, find so we have had left these two old opponents, both in a prominent position still. Mr Kingston is a member of the first Ministry, and Sir Richard inflamed' me that he is an aspirant for the position of President of the Senate, on which he regards himself as having strong claims. He was Vice-President of the 1897 Conference, and as such was almost always in the chair, as the bulk of the work of the Convention whs done in committee. He is now, and has been for years, President of the Legislative Council of South Australia, and believes that if the members of the Federal. Convention could elect the President of ' the Senate it would' undoubtedly fall to him; It maybe that the Government will have their own nominee, but it is just on the cards that, while the Government mil have a pliant majority in the House of Representatives, they will not have such a strong support in the Senate, and that party lines, quite apart from the fiscal question-, will develop there at the outset in such a way as to give the smaller States a majority which -they will use to elect their own President, as a protest against the domination of the majority of the Lower House from the two larger States, which, will together have a majority in the House of Representatives. On a by-aspect of this question I had an interesting chat with Sir Richard. On the general question of the possibility of New Zealand entering the Federation, Sir Richard Baker, following the lines of other Australian politicians, said he would ba delighted to welcome -the island colony, and, if elected, would certainly be one to afford every facility for .bringing this about. He considered 1 that New Zealand, on account of her local conditions, deserved special concessions, and if these were asked for to a reasonable extent fee should be prepared l to support them; A suggestion has been made in New Zealand, Sir Richard, th-alfc, as an alternative to complete Federation, the polony should endeavour to bring about -reciprocal trade relations with the Common■wealth. Do you consider this feasible or advisable?—Well, to be frank, I ami dubious about it. You -see, we have some experience of that kind of thing in South Australia, and! our experience has been a very depressing one. I have been recently writing ai series of articles for an Adelaide paper, giving an outline history of Federation from a South Australian- aspect. I was surprised to find the number of unsuccessful attempts which have -been made to bring about reciprocal trade relations with other colonies. If I remember rightly there were about fifteen of these, everyone of which failed.

What was the basis of these arrange-' ments? —The position is that in. 1873 Great Britain, in response to the wishes of the colonies, passed an Imperial Act, -which authorised any one or more of these colonies te, enter into reciprocal trade relations with each other in the form of trade treaties. From that day to this attempts have been made to bring, about these treaties in all directions, everyone of which has ended! in failure. The last two attempts which were made in South Australia were with respect to Tasmania aadi New Zealand. The Ministries of both, colonies agreed to the schemes, but the Parliaments of both colonies promptly repudiated the arrangements made by them. As a matter of fact, an attempt to arrange reciprocal trade relations before Federation is like an attempt to putt the cart before the horse. - Whenever an attempt is made to arrange a treaty each colony wants to get the best of it. Then, when the proposal comes before the Legislature, the scheme is criticised from the local standpoint. In no case has any Parliament endorsed any of the attempts made in South Australia, They have both said: “ We won’t have anything to do with it.” The only thing at all in this way which was effected was an arrangement with New South Wales, under which we used to pay the New South Wales Government a certain amount per annum on account of South Australian goods taken across the Darling, and! thejr used to pay us a certain amount for goods brought to our side. On this basis everything went up the .Murray free. That was a kind of treaty to save expense in collection on each side. Of course, these payments were based on the tariff’s of the respective colonies. The New South Wales Government ultimately refused to renew the arrangement. This was not, of conme, reciprocity, but it has some relation to the subject. I am afraid yon will never get reciprocity without Federation, because directly it is shown that one side or the other has the advantage the opposite side will repeal it. You can’t help that. Do you think, assuming New Zealand entered the Federation, that she would have the co-operation of the smaller colonies, not exactly in the form of a combination as'against the larger ones, but .tacitly for mutual defence ?—Yes, I think that is mostly likely to happen. Indeed, it is my opinion that party lines in the Federal Parliament will be very different from those of the past in the different colonies, and that neither Freetrade versus Protection, nor even Radicalism versus Conservatism, will form the main 'dividing lines. I think you will find that the issue ■will be, In the jniMn, Centralisation versus Decentralisation, as in America. ■ Which will mean, to a certain extent, will it not, smaller colonies versus large ones? —Yes, to an extent, perhaps. Yon know, in America those were tlje first lines of political demarcation, and when the federation was formed, parties almost at once sorted out into Democrats (who were more or less Decentralist?) and Republicans (who represented more the centralising ele-

mentj. This# of course, involves iStatq rights, and will result in, as you suggest; the smaller' States coming, together. , ;!

Then you assume that if Now Zealahifl came in she would be more likely to Woirg in accord with the smaller States, andH would not be likely to be a separate entity) working independent of the other States?—< That is roughly my idea, and I think you! might say that there would be little chanca of New Zealand representatives being iso-, iated or overwhelmed. They would always have allies.