MR BEAKIN INTERVIEWED.

Otago Witness, Issue 2779, 19 June 1907, Page 19

MR BEAKIN INTERVIEWED.

SYDNEY June 12. The following interview with Mr Deakin in England has been telegraphed from Fremantle : — Dealing with the attitude of the Imperial Government, Mt Deakin said: "I think Ministers acted consistently, but argued throughout inconsistently. They absolutely refused any and every kind of fiscal preference, either on their existing tariff or by any modification of it. In that direction there was no thoroughfare ; but they- suggested that in regard to modes of preference other than fiscal they had an open mind. They invited propositions of any character, although they refrained from making any themselves ; yet when I submitted a general suggestion for the purpose of providing a basis which might lead to some definite arrangement t was attacked in the most contemptuous spirit, and my suggestion was dealt with in its details, in spite of my repeated protest at the time that details were matters of indifference, and that Ministers were evading the real purpose of my proposal. What I sought was practical action and a resolution necessary to allow such action to be taken. The outcome was that that offer was declined, and a general and indefinite resolution in favour of some such action being taken hereafter at some indefinite time took its place." Mr Deakin instanced the case of Sir W. Laurier's mail eervice proposal, which was met, he said, certainly with less aggressiveness, but with almost equally determined opposition. " Sir Wilfrid Laurier," continued Mr Deakin, "was obliged to consent to his motion being whittled down before he could assure its acceptance. There is little prospect now of Sir J. G Ward's desire for a rapid Pacific ser-vit-e receiving anytliing like adequate supuort from the British Government. The total practical result of endeavours to ascertain the forms of co-operation other than fiscal preference to which the Imperial Government was willing to agree was nil. It would have been more consistent if Ministers with a mandate against prefreence had given their decision at the outset of the conference. We were met, in effect, at the close of the argument with a plain non po6sumus, quite irrespective of the merits of the discussion, or, in fact, of any discussion we could have maintained. Except, therefore, as a dialectic extra for Ministers, the whole debate, so far as they wore concerned, was rendered meaningless. It had all been decided beforehand, and decided for them as much as by them. While, therefore, they were perfectly conektenfc in refusing to accept our proposal, : hey were quite inconsistent when they encomaged us to pursue our argument at gieat length, without a prospect of the aiguments leading to anything."