The Evening Star THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 4008, 30 December 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1875.

The ‘Australian Sketeher,’ commenting upon an article in the ‘Spectator,’ arrives at the conclusion that the extinction of party in politics is a national evil, and considers that in Victoria they have arrived at that undesirable condition. The reasons given seem very insuflicieut to establish the point. Ignoring altogether the serious social question on which the people of the Colony are divided, the ‘ Sketeher ’ assumes the non. existence of party is proved through three different Treasurers having recourse to rim - lar measures for increasing the revenue. In tho present s’ato of political science this is not a matter to bo wondered at. Hotwith* standing the ingenuity displayed in all ages for extracting money out of men’s pocket?, professedly for State purposes, the means available where representative institutions exist are limited, Taxation must be cither di ect or indirect in any case, aud in Victoria indirect taxation has been carried to its ultimatum, That is to say, it has ptoduced the effect proposed by one party—for we do n-it agree with the conclusion that party is extinct. 7 he high tariff on many articles has answered precisely one purpose aimed at by its advocates—it has created monopolies of Colonial manufactures and productions. It dres not appear from the debates which preceded the adoption of this exclusive policy that it ever entered the minds of the projectors that cne consequence would be tbe destruction of revenue formerly received in the shape of import duties on those articles. Or if a glimmering of the truth entered their heads, they persuad d themselves that their system would produce results so wondrous that revenue would pour in from other sources to supplement the loss. Mr Graham Bkiuiy, the*apostle of protection, Las been called in more than once to mend his party’s work, but every attempt has made it worse. His theory scorns to bo a very simple one, and were there no disturbing circumstances it would bo arithme.ically correct. He xe.-soued some years ago “tho duties received on such aud such articles are so much. I want doub e that amount; therefore I will impose extra duties, and I shall realise it ” iSo he would had the duties been received, bat they were wot. instead of that the Customs revenue has been falling ofV gradually until the delioienoy has rendered decisive mca arcs necessary. Bince excessive indirect taxation has proved a failure, d'rcct taxation is the only resource, and hence that agreement in kind by different trea hirers that has led to the arsuaiptiun by the ‘ .Sketeher ’ that party is extinct. But underlying this apparent unity of plan ia tho difference between free and restricted trade—between the competitive aud the exclusive systems. The idea of a sort of paradise in which men may live by tbe least possible exertion of talent and energy is very pleasant; but, notwithstanding the dreams of philosophers and poets, it is unattainable and undesirable. Man was not intended to grow like a plant, nor to browse like an oxliving he knows not how, nor for what. His whole organisation points to progress—his natural condition in relation toothings around bun leads to energetic exertion. Tho cardinal error of the exclusive system is that it seeks to concentrate effort upon, and limit it to tinsupply of a small community. That is. in other words, the people shall live upon each other. A modern wriver, Baoehot, says, “The progress of man requir. hj th< co operation of men for its development That which any oac man or any one farai y could invent for themselves is obviously tx cecdingly limited. And even if this wen not tru**, isolated progress could never be traced. The rude*t m.-c of co-operative society, the lowest tribe. and the feehles: Government is so much stronger thau isolated man, that isolated man (if he ever existed in

Any ihajDS that could be oftlled man), night very easily have ceased to exist. The first principle of the subject is that man can only make progress in ‘ co-operative groups.’ I might say tribis and nations, but I use the less common word because few people would at- once see that tribes and nations o/v- cooperative groups, and that it is their being so which makes their value : that unless you can make a strong co-operativo bond, your society will bo conquered sn 1 killed out by some society which has such a bind ; and the second principle is that tho members of such a group should bo similar enough to one another to cooperate easily and readily together. The co operation in all cases depends oil a ji ’J, of heart and ipnit ; and this is only felt, when there is a great degree of real likeness in mind and foiling, however that likeness may have been attained ” Restrictive systems —no matter of what kind—tend to destroy such bonds of union. They r , as in Victoria, set class against class : in other words, create difference instead of likeness. For the sake of half a score capitalists and their few employes, all the rest of the community is taxed indirectly, and some portions of it directly • and we are travelling in the same direction when we set up the Province in opposition to tho Colony. We have had ill fruit enough from Provincial jealo sics : we are asked to render it more bitter by creating insular rivalry. Would it not be wiser to foster the “felt union” of boart and spirit, or to create it if wanting ?