THE PREMIER AND FEDERATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11148, 22 August 1899, Page 3

THE PREMIER AND FEDERATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—When I ventured to address you yestorday, I referred only to the question " Freedom of Parliament" as a constitutional question, and had not the Premier's reply to Mr. O'Rcgan before mo. Reading the latter again more carefully, I find it fairly bristles with the most extraordinary inaccuracies, as coming from suoli a source, I am amazed indeed. Tho Premier of Now South Wales promptly corrected the first, but by no means the most conspicuous. I purpose dealing with the rost, and (1) " The export trade of New Zealand with New South Wales was just as good when the ports of that colony wore shut to our produco as since they were opened." New South Wales ports were never "shut to our trade," or how could wo export to her? Ho means, of course, when her tariff was still in force, and ought to have said so. This is an example of the inaccurate, slipshod language which sp unfortunately obtains currency, and for which the merest neophito in the press would be rebuked, Is the statement true? Our exports to Australia in 1895 amounted to £978,843, and 'in 1898 to £1,475,157, the increase mainly attributable to Sydney's open port. Hero is an increase of nearly half-a-million— Taking the figures for 1895 from my pamphlet for the year 1895, and from your article of July 15, for 1898, let us place them in juxtaposition;—

1895. 1893. £ £ . Butter .; 7,920 75,728 Cheese 6,264 53,914 Oatmeal 8,019 16.983 Potatoes 6,871 137,416 Timber 109,308 147,892 Grass Seed • 11,205 43,152 " Fish 14,736 Malt-'-.. 25,868 Leather... All under £5000 17,617 Hides 17,296 Tallow ... 39,026 Preserved Meats ~.. 26,139 Pliormium tenas'... 29,531 Machinery .„ ... 24,741 The increase, you will observe, in three years was over 50 per cent., or equal to more than half the entire exports of 1895. And only a single port an open one. What would have been the increase had Jive ports been ■°P?. n '. And,' nevertheless, the responsible > Premier of the colony can bo guilty of making such an ;■ outrageously mendacious statement. Strange, too, that a truculent and emasculated 'Parliament should .permit it to pass unchallenged, without either rebuke or protest, , , .

The next inaccuracy (2) is still more glaring, "The fact was, that owing to frequent droughts, Australia had in such seasons to take our produce whether or no." Is this true! It is not. It is, indeed, a huge and stupid error. Australia, as a matter of fact, never had, and never can have, a season of drought. Our reliance upon Australian droughts to augment our trade rests upon no foundation whatever. So many, who ought to know better, I frequently observe, fall into the same error. Parts of Australia only are liable to droughts; the interior chiefly, like the Riverina, or the Darling Downs. Australia has an area much larger, than ten New Zealands that is as little liable to droughts as New Zealand is. She has always a large surplus for export. The scarcity in any part of Australia stricken with drought she herself could supply ten times over from her own superabundance, and snap her fingers at New Zealand. My purpose is not only to correct the Premier's stupid blunders, but to rebuke the egotism of so many. Where, then, does Now Zealand come in? It is existing fiscal barriers that affords us our opportunity. Mark it well. Those barriers once removed, and New Zealand out in the cold, our opportunity of supplying the wants of any colony suffering from drought will have passed for ever. Lot me try to make this ro plain that he who runs may read. Let us suppose it is Queensland that is suffer from a drought, and must import largo quantities of produce. As things are still, and always have been, New Zealand can supply the demand on precisely the same terms as Now South Wales, Victoria, or South Australia. Fiscal barriers, shortly to be abolished, I repeat, havo given us our considerable share of this trade. Freetrado between '.lie federated colonies will completely transform the economic conditions, creating a hcu/icent interchange, from participation in which heavy duties will infallibly exclude us, drought or no drought! Another very questionable statement of tho Premier: (3) "He believed in a self-re-liant policy—the policy of Grey and Atkinson. My recollection is that he opposed Atkinson's policy tooth and nail. Whether or not tho inference that they would be opposed to federation wero they alive now is unwarrantable. I havo it from personal friends of both statesmen that they were in favour of federation, when they counted for so much in New Zealand legislation. That is of no consequence, however. What I object to, is invoking the dead hand. A truer inference unquestionably would have been that had they been alive now Buch perfervid men as they were would have caught on to federation. The stolid Premier must not judge such men by himself. Had the New South Wales Premier been buried two or three short years ago, his name would have gone to posterity, i\ot as the champion of federation, but as tho champion opponent. We are all more or less the creatures of our environment, and had both Grey and Atkinson been ardent opponents—which they never were— they been alive, as I wish they were at this supreme juncture in our history, they would have become the most ardent of federalists. Another marvellous statement of the Premier's, after assuring the House that ho " was keeping himself well posted up," had reference to his superlative fad, reciprocity: (4) "For himself he regarded New Zealand's part as one of reciprocity, as an independent State, rather than to be governed by Australia." This statement contains two radical errors, marvellous in one who has had such opportunities at the colony's expense of knowing better. What opportunities and money wasted absurdly! Did ho know tho rudiments of commerce, after several conspicuous failures, where success was, indeed, impossible, ho would drop reciprocity. In his heart of hearts ho knows it to be a chimera, and it is the sheerest balderdash to trot it out again, laying his monoy on the wrong hone. The other error, that we shall under federation be "governed from Australia," is to tickle tho ears of the groundlings. Ho cannot surely bo guilty of such stupendous ignorance. We shall continue to be a selfgoverning—a- sovereign State. As Dr. MeArthur so ably pointed out at the last league meeting, that would mean unification, which federation is not; which is another and altogether different thing. We shall continue, after federating, as I trust wo shall, as free as independent, as much a self-governing colony as we are now—much freer, I venture to think, for it looks as if federation will prove the death-knell of Seddonism in Now Zealand, the Seddonian autocracy in so many odious, humiliating, and demoralising forms. Seddon's unbounded ambition will destroy him. "By that sin fell the angels," and, much as I trusted him, I never thought him in tho least angelic. Another insulting and absurd statement: (5) " It was only a matter of how many sacks of oats or potatoes wo could send to Australia, and not a national question— question of nation-making." What can one say to such a olumsy and idiotic statement from the head of any Government? It carries its own refutation on the face of it. It is a question of work and wages among other things, and the workmen upon whoso votes lie relies when flouting business men, will find out that all the Premier cares for is his own power and ambition. But he follows that statement up with another equally absurd: (6) " The intercolonial trade was already in favour of Australia." Last year wo sent goods to the value of nearly a million and a-half, almost all our own production. What we took from them, tho produce of the colonies, cannot bo ascertained with accuracy from New Zealand statistics, but it is quite within tho mark _ to assumo that it did not exceed half-a-million. I have gono through the figures obtainable carefully and make it considerably less. Absolutely incorreot ib the Premier's favourite sunerlativo when contradicting his critics. Absolutely incorrect, I unhesitatingly pronouace is tho Premier with reference to five at least of his statements in his brief reply to Mr. O'Rogan. I cannot assume such certainty with refcrenco to one of his assertions—the thirdand on the constitutional question, the subject of my previous letter, no student of constitutional history will agree with Mr. Seddon in his successful stifling of Parliamentary freedom of discussion upon any question, much less one of such overwhelming importance as our federating with the Australian colonies.— am, etc., J. Kennedy Brown.