Mr J.G. Ward on Federation.

Otago Witness, Issue 1900, 3 July 1890, Page 11

Mr J. G. Ward on Federation.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Throughout the whole of Mr J. G.'Ward's speech on Federation, as reported in your i«sueof June; 19,, it is apparent t«i tho c ireful rendt-r I hat the only nrgumeuti of any impottancc adduced by him in favour of the scheme is Hip potsibil'ty of Freetr.ide b-twueu N^w Zfulnnd at'd the ot.her colonies. I nee the word " poßslbih'y "mlvisedly. Mr Ward does not appear to claim that rbeitt is any luoro than a poisibiliy of Freetrado bein,; established; and. moiv.ovpr, if Federation weie imiHnent there appears to mi 1 a probability (lo>ki<ig at the present highly protective policies ot the principal Australian c lontes) tli.it those colonies would insier. upon the tariff being reserved for thi le^ibla'ures of the different Slate* to denl with. Nevertheless, the bait as held out by Mr Wurd is a tempting of, for the removal of the present )il//h duties levied by New i<outb. Wales and Viototia »ou'd be beneficial to New Zealand. Yet, while c ntßmplßtiug these possible advantages, it would be well for the people of thiß country to consider gtavely the possible disadvantages which might arise before committing rhemßtlve.s to anything delinito in tho matter. And the moro bo is judicious forethought aud mature deliberation demanded in the case of New Zealand, because by ro.eou ot the narrow dimensions of our territory and the sparsity of our population, and the proportionate limitation to tho number of members we should contribute to the Federal Council, we would be practically at the mercy of th« other State* in all matters reserved by the coustitutum for tho supervision of the Central Government. Do my miuri the matter demanding the moot serious onnel<le-;ition at this sla^o is the nature and extent of the pr.iposed union. I<t us know exactly by what manner of tin w a'e to be bound ; for rej^ardiny ioi- n m >ment tli» historical prt'cedonlfl which w.i have befoie us, iv is not difficult to [conceive, that events might arlso which would render it of paramount, inipoitmico to Its own interests lor any on- of tl>o Stales—mid >'ow Z-aland p.irtioulaily, tor rnnnnns bi-fnrft rtnt.cd—tn soverthe federal bond, and Ij.ivh g in view tlio posoibilltv of such a contingoucy, the, quc.si.iuu tin m-aliy premnts itsolf. Would It b- p usable t> Ct\ r,i v. ithout the consent of tho other States? 'In other words, is the federal obligation to be revocnble at the will of any State wishing to becede, or is it lo be irrevocable ? I think that any ono bestoyv' g a tew uiuuiuuts' meditation on tho question will iinrdly fa'l to discern that if a halo of uncertainty as to how I <i\g it may endure is to hnug ovw th<i Federal • mincil—if the right to secede at any moment in to bo included iv the rights reserved to the rliff -rent SfcHles-tho continuity of progress would hp Inte rrm fed. nor could there be any tinal or permanent arrangement in our national legislation. Federation with the right reserved to each State lo withdraw from obligations at will would bn iticousißt.Lt and ab.urd. To confer permanent benefit"? tho tin ought to be unbieakable, and it is clear that thi originators of the scheme In Australia intended It to be so, forParkes proposed to follow the pattern of tho Canadian Doraiaiou. in whioh the States an: Lrevocably bound, as New Brunswick learned when it contemplated secession. In the event of New Zealand committing itself to a union of this nature, and such a contingency as I have mentioned arising, our present free and untramnWled country might find itself one day between tho horns •of a aerlous dilemma, and its people shorn of a large proportion of their Independence. We are now for all practical purposes a sovereign state. If we are to give up any of our sovere'gn powers let u» do so with full knowledge of the extent and effect of the surrender, and above all let us make certnin that we are going to get something of national value in return. Mr J. G. Ward bids us beware ket we allow ourselves to be cut off from the benefits of uniestrkted trade with the sister colonies. Thn admonition is a wiie one, but let us also beware lest we bring upon ourselves evils which may overwhelmingly counterbalance the advantage pointed out by him. The rights we possess and the libei ties we enjoy are of the people. If any' f those liberties aro to be abnegated —if any of tfioee rlghfs are to he delegated to a Federal Oouncil the mandate for such abnegation or delegation ought to spring from thi people whose they are, and let them ere the.} issue lucb rmandate weigh well the possible benefits and evils whioh may arise should federation become an established fact. — I am, &c, ' B. Ward. Fairfax, Juue 25. At a public meeting at Duntroon a committee Was appoiuted to draw up a petition to the Minister of Lands calling upon him to cut up for settlement runs 17,300 and 301, containing about 57,000 acres. A cowshed and byre at Mosgiul, the property of Mr James Smeaton, was dc6troj ed by fire oa Monday afternoon. One of Mr Smeaton's ohildren, aged about four yr-nn, was looking for eggs, when she struck a match, which set fire to the straw. Half a ton of hay anrl half a ton of straw were destroyed. The shed was valued at £30, and was uninsured.