A Roland For His Oliver

Southland Times, Issue 13503, 21 July 1896, Page 3

A Roland For His Oliver

The reply which Sir Edward Braddon has sent to the head of the Government of New Zealand is hardly (says the Hobart Mercury) couched in language usual to the diplomatic service, but it is more than justified by the circumstances of the case. In response to a request that the restrictions now imposed upon the importation cf New Zealand swine to Tasmania might be removed, Sir Edward replies with a most decisive negative, basing his refusal upon the little disposition the Seddon Government have shown to remove the recently imposed duties on Tasmanian fruit. Now, if this were mere Braddonian smartness there would be something to laugh ab in it, because ib is such an appropriate 4w quoque, but there is an undercurrent of deeper meaning which will excuse the message to those who would otherwise object to its seeming flippancy ; and, much as Tasmanian producers might like to be revengediupon those who have served them so cavalierly, and spoiled for them a market which, already good, had promised to become muoh better, they would not care to do so at the expense of international courtesy, or to effect the silly process which is vulgarly known aa “ cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.” The difference is this, and Sir Edward, purposely perhaps, in his desire to otherwise extinguish his suppliants, has not dwelt upon it. The fever to which swine are subject, and at which our quarantine regulations aro aimed, is a real evil, which we wish to preserve our swine breeders from experiencing in their yards, whereas the codlin moth and other fruit pests, against which our New Zealand neighbours ostensibly directed their Customs weapons, were already in their orchards, ana are still in them. The Maorilanders were not so much intent on the orchard destroyers, as against over competition in the local markets in lines where they were already beginning to supply more than the local demand warranted, and so they not only robbed the Tasmanian growers of their natural outlet for their fruit, but condemned New Zealand consumers to the sole use of an inferior article, or to none at all, because it was the known excellence of many of tno Tasmanian grown varieties that they did not care to continue to fight against. The Braddonian reply, therefore, fits the ease, though it is hardly based upon strictly logical lines. The New Zealanders have trodden on the Tasmanian coat-tails in tho heaviest fashion, and must simply put up with the consequences.