The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1911. IMPERIAL FEDERATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7450, 26 May 1911, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1911. IMPERIAL FEDERATION

Until the question of Imperial Federation is given a practical side, and that side is set before the public for consideration, the discussion of generalities is not very profitable. Naturally tbe question comes in for frequent allusion just now in view of the Colonial Conference, but as tbo Conference has not assembled to discuss a definite scheme, but rather to consider subsidiary questions which stand in the way of tho principal object, it would bo premature to expect anything conclusive at the present stage. Tho cabled comments of the London press on the subject do not appear to mean much, hut it seems to be clear that there are people ready now, as there were when the last Conference assembled, to utilise “the Imperial idea” for the, purpose of gaining party advantage. The circumstances, however, are not nearly so favourable to them as on the last occasion. Air Fisher is a much more cautious map than Air Deakin or Sir William Lyne. In 1907 Air Deakin delivered, a long address in favour of Imperial preference to a Government that had just received a direction from the constituencies to maintain freetrade, and it is incontestable that Imperial preference implies the negation of this, William Lyne went further than his political chief, for ho did not hesitate to violate good tasto to the extent of addressing Unionist jxditical gatherings. So also did the South African representatives, Dr Jameson and. Air Smart. On that occasion, indeed. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Joseph Ward were the only colonial representatives who did not make themselves ridiculous by becoming conveniences in the hands of party managers. Since 1907, however, not only have Governments changed both in Australia and in South Africa, but the constituencies of the United Kingdom have twice returned the Liberals to office. It is fair to predict accordingly that the proprieties will receive much more respect this' time than when tho Premiers last assembled in London.

It appears to be certain that no scheme of Imperial Federation cc uid ignore the tariff issue, partly because tbat issue is naturally incidental to the question, but mainly because the Tariff Reformers are certain to raise it. Ponding the promulgation of a scheme of Federal union it is quite competent to. consider the tariff issue in itself, and very little reflection is required to show that the difficulties in the way of a uniform tariff policy for the Empire are so enormous tbat the onus lies heavily on those who would have a uniform system to show bow they- would cope with these difficulties:, In 1904 Mr Balfour stated in. the House of Commons that it would be impossible to ignore India in connection with any Imperial tariff policy. Yet the advocates of preference never once mention India, and when the Bannerman Government appointed an official representative of India at the Conference in 1907, Mr Deakin and Sir William Lyne questioned the wisdom of doing so. Then there are outposts of the Empire like the Straits Settlements and Hongkong, which have grown into their present position on a policy of freetrade. Apart from the mer-ts of tieetrade or of protection, it is not an easy matter to change the policy initiated long ago in the Straits Settlements by Sir Stamford Raffles. Then there is the relation of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand to one another and to Britain. In connection with difficulties such as these advocates of Imperial preference are silent, though it is incumbent upon them' to show how they would remove these and kindred difficulties. Wo say “kindred difficulties” advisedly, because other problems arise in magnified form in other portions of the Empire. Just now the oppositionists in England are much concerned about Canada. They take it for granted that Canada has entered into negotiations with America for more intimate trade relations for no reason other than one of resentment at the neglect of British Liberal statesmen to listen to her alleged overtures for preference. They even go further, and argue from the assumption'that freedom of certain trade os between Canada and America is the prelude to annexation by the latter, and the beginning of disruption. Wo question, however, if the people who talk thus really take themselves as seriously as would appear in cold print. The test of every form of government is the effect on the public welfare. If the public opinion of Canada demands opportunity for trade witji America, or indeed with any other country, it is certain that public opinion will have its way. In reality the question of local selfgovernment is involved in this problem of Imperial Federation. The colonies have obtained their existing autonomy after a series of struggles the memory of which, though forgotten by many, still lingers. The fiscal question involves the important domestic question of taxation, and local control of taxation is of tho essence of colonial autonomy. What would be tbs position in Canada to-day if the Chamberlain scheme had come into operation, say, in 1906? There would be, in Canada, at least a powerful minority agitating for closer trade with the United States. Canadian Imperialists would taunt them "with endeavouring

to undo the Imperial tie, and thus very vital question of Canada’s connection with the Empire would have become an issue in party politics. Nobody who understands human nature—and the man who docs not understand it is unfit for any position of political trllst —pan believe that Canada would sacrifice her autonomy for the advantage of belonging to an Empire that curtailed her independence to adopt such, taxation as she . deemed best adapted to her requirements. If anyone doubts, this let him recall the outcry provoked throughout Canada a few - years since in connection with the Alaska Boundary Award. Apart, however, from the particular question of the Reciprocity Agreement, there exist, already important trade arrangements between Canada and America. Supposing' Britain applied the “big stick” of retaliation to America, what -would become of tho treaty arrangement by' virtue of which Canada has for nearly forty years been enabled to ship her exports and unship her imports at New' York during those months when tho Gulf of St. Lawrence is frozen over? It is Britain’s policy of impartial freedom of trade towards all nations that keeps such arrangements as these working smoothly. Retaliation would soon begot retaliation, and if applied to America, would at once provoke serious consequences for Canada. It is difficult t a suppose that such disregard for international amity and political wisdom would promote contentment in Canada, and what, is true of Canada is equally so of any other of tho British dependencies. Until tho difficulties we have indicated arc met and disposed of it is sincerely to be hoped that nothing will be done to make tho question of colonial control over colonial business an issue in Imperial politics. It must ho taken for granted from tho outset that taxation is a matter for local control by each of tho oversea Dominions just as it is for the Alother Country herself. Sir Joseph Ward has very properly always insisted upon this point. It is at tho kernel of every proposed project for. constitutional change.