Wairarapa Daily Times. [ESTABLISHED 1878.] MONDAY, SEPTEMBER, 1893. BRITISH AMERICAN UNION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4520, 11 September 1893, Page 2

Wairarapa Daily Times. [ESTABLISHED 1878.] MONDAY, SEPTEMBER, 1893. BRITISH AMERICAN UNION.

Mr Caiwgie, the well-known Americnn iron king, has an article in tbo North American Review for June, in which he argnes that "the union, which, only a century ago so happily existed between Britain, Canada, and America, should I)b at once re-estab-li.sbcd. It seems that ten years ago Mr W.T, Stead, Editor of the Beview ol Beviews, niged the same thing in the Pall Mall Gazette, The proposal seems to us to rt-at on purely sentimental grounds, and we can see nothing in its favour. It is quite true that States have before now formed unions, but the objects were definite, Let us take such sample ones as mutual defence, economy of administration, and national sentiment. In 1870 or thereabouts, what.; we now call Germany, was a mere geographical term, comprising a number, of independent States, of very different sizes. They were absolutely obliged to combine for mutual defence, or else they could have been easily defeated in detail by their powerful neighbours. They formed a union, with good results. It is easy to see that in their case a union was highly desirable. The more expense of diplomatic relations with foreign, powers must have bean enormously decreased; while ille advantages of a commonsystem of money,lawandeducation, are obvious. With i egard to Italy, the same remarks apply. When Piedmont, Naples, etc, were independent someign states, they could not treat on equal terms with Franca or Austria, In the oase of England, everyone knows that when Wales, Scotland, and Ireland- were independent these were practical inconveniences. As things are at present, with Ireland in almost open rebellion, it is bete than if she were ind-pen-. dent or under JJ'renoh proteototato, But what would England gain by a " union" with America ? , Would defence be easier ? America fears no foes, and ha practically neither army nor "navy. She would never consent to pay her share of a navy which acts merely bb an Ooean Patrol to protect our colonies, Would economy follow? We do not think bo. To take a simple illustration, look at the case of a sheep farm of some 30,000 acres, left by a father equally among six sons. They agree that instead of cutting it up they will place it under 1 a manager and share the profits, It is clear that there is some prospect of eoonomy here, But suppose two sheep farmers, one in Auckland and the other iuOtago, agree to unite, to place their runs under one manager, and go. away for ten years. Does anyone see any great prospect of economy here? The same thing applies to States. When they are small, contiguous,. and surrounded by powerful neighbours, they may '"combine-: with. advantage. When Ihey are powerful, dis« tant, and not threatened, by superior power* nothing: e|n bo gained.; A desirable; than "a bnionjjetwegn yenezuela andiOhilh ;We/'have not to pfitline.tbe jrgumehts'agairisi'su^ opnlenJl tbH^^^t§i|i||^

said in its favour. The trainees of Sir Carnegie's oasemay be seen t'rorii .' the fact that he lays gmu streps on the (übt '?| that eucji a union would ' mean free trade lietwei'ti England and America. Bnt' thia free trade is exactly what America does not wnnt. ' If Bbe considers it likely to be a blessing, England is only too ready for it. So far as we ure aware, England imposes no duties.whatever on American produce or mannfaciures,aud. America bnß only to pass an Aot admitting English manufactures fire of duty, to obtain- the benefits' which Mr Our : negie thinks slm would appreciate bo much. But is it a fact that such a union would mean free trade? If English goods nre not admitted free to her own colonies, such as Canada, why would they necessarily bo admitted free at New York or Boston ? Seeing therefore that neither party would gain by su:h a union, we do not at present care to discuss the grave objections to it,