SYDNEY LETTER

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 2929, 23 April 1891, Page 4

SYDNEY LETTER

(I;Y Ol'll OWN UOKKKSI'ONDKNT.) SyiiN'ky, April 7. The terribly fatal accidont at the Easter military manu'iivres throw a dark cloud over tho close of the otherwise successful proceedings Four lino fellows—the flower of the manhood of tha colony—were suddenly blown into eternity by the accidental explosion of a torpedo, winch was hanging ovor tho storn of thoir boat. Lt had been intended to tire a charge, lying a oal'o distance off at the bottom of tho harbour, bur, in a moment of hurry or forgetfuluoss one of the party (who paid for his mistake with liis life) connected tho wrong wire with the battery. The explosion which followed shattered tho aftor part of the boat, and blew four of tho party literally into little bits.

Tho authorities are naturally voticont, but it is bolioved that tho mine liring expedition which ended ko untowardly had no real connection with the actual work of tho encampment, but was a gratuitous exhibition got up for the delectaton of Lord and Lady Jersey, and a few distinguished visitors. If this is so, it is ovidont that we aro paying far more dearly than is necossavy for our royal game of playing at soldiers

Tho publis funeral, of the poor follows, whoso summons came to thorn while they were thus helping to make an Australian holiday, was a magnificent and imposing spectacle. The greater part of the population of tho city and suburbs turned out en masse to witness it, and it was hardly possible to got along' tho streets. This may be considered as a mute, though touching recognition of the honorable desert of those who dio in the discharge of duty, liowover questionable may have boen the wisdom of ordering" thorn to perform the task. " Their's not to reason why; thoir'sbut to do and die."

Two or threo important fact*, however, may bo gleaned from the disaster, and those are worth noting, although of a lower order. In the lirst plaoe, it is once moro plainly shown that torpedos, even when handled by men of exceptional intelligence and carefulness, may prove as formidable to friqnds as to enemies. Secondly, the destructive effect of their explosion, ev-m under the most, favourable circumstances, is not so deathili'iiling as might bo imagined. In this case, although the charge was lirud close to the stern of the boat, mily four men out of tlio fourteen who composed the crew wore killed. Two escaped without any injury at nil, and five wore so slightly JPiirt that they were able to resume duty within fourty-eight hours of the accident, and it is believed the remaining throo will be able to leave the Hospital before tho ond of tho week, The boat itself, though its stern was blown to fragments, lloated for some time after tho explosion.

When Federation was first mooted, it was sufficiently obvious that though it was easy to applaud a plausible sontimont, and to join in a popular cry, tho making of the sacrifices and concessions necessary to bring it to pass would be a very different matter. Tho soundness of this forecast is now abundantly vindicated. Somo of those who were the loudest aud most inconsiderate in swelling the cry for immediate action are now among the most impracticable of its opponents. It seems as though Ihero is a large class who eaniii iL by any means be got to louk beyond tho end of thoir jxoi.es. When au inspiring theme is liist presented to them, they see nothing but: the gloi'yand throw up their hats accordingly. When they got near enough to count tho cost, and nro brought face to face with the distasteful sacrifices wherein must, be mode, they see nothing but difficulty. There nro no more obstacles in the way of Federation now than thoro were then, and there were quite as many obstacles when tho project wfs lirst mooted as there are now, yet with this fickle arid unstable section of the public it is as fashionable now to declare that Federation is impossible as it was a few months ago to doclaro that it was tho ono thing noodful.

Tko chief oauso of tliG present discouragement is tlie fact (which should have boon obvious to practical statesmen till along) that it is found necessary to give tho smaller colonics an equality of voting power with tho larger in tho Senate. Iu no other way does it appear that their independence or autonomy can bo effectively guaranteed. Tho smaller colonies, it must bo remembered, were invited ia common with tho rest, to Federation, not to amalgamation or obliteration. But ■without absolute autonomy Federation is impossible. The equality of voting power in tho Senato of large find small colonies is not such a glaringanomaly as that which gives an ignorant drunken loafer an equality of voting power with a patriotic, intelligent, and thrifty citizen, Yet it is almost universally Vouceded that tho latter, inequitable <i >11 appears to be, is tho only practicable coniproni iso by which tho lower classes can be enabled to i-'Ccuro themselves against possible oppression by the higher. With ■\vhat show of reason, then, can those who tamolv accept the one anomaly make au insuperable ditti., culty oi' tho other.

Tho Bill, as it stands, proposes to make tlin Senate, which is riinrgml wi'tli tlio defence of Slate siiflirinntly strong fo per/orrti i!s task. Hill it. has m> strength ror aggression. It will be just as impossible tor the Sonatu to force JJifyaccoptaiico of any measure on tlio popular chamber as it will bo for the latter to force any measuro upon it. Guarantees against aggression ai'o all that are noeded to preserve tho peace, oither in tho family, tho State, or the Commonwealth of States, and these, the .■'(vWft/inn Convention are nnlv

discharging an obvious duty in endeavouring to securo. But, besides the difficulties that are being thrown iu the way by timid and vacillating supponters of Federation, there is a great deal of outspoken and thorough-going opposition to tho proposal. It clfielly comes from that largo section which appears to think that no step is worth taking unless they can obtain some unfair advantage by it. Some of tho Protectionists don't liko it, because all the colonies will have to start fair in the mattor of tariffs, and because tho honour of having originated the idea will not fall to their party. Some of the Free Traders don't like it because it will inevitably inaugurate a system of Protection against the outside world. It is amusing, however, to note that a reputedly staunch Free Trader like Sir John Robertson can be so rabid against Federation as to sink even liis Free Trade principles in opposing it. I conclude thus from the fact that Sir John is supporting the candidature of Mr Bradley, a Protectionist, for East Sydney. Not only have Free Trade Federationists consented to forego some of their hostility to Protection in order to bring about an alliance of the colonies, but Free Trade antiFederationists are abetting Protection in order to prevent it. Neitherside, therefore, is in a position to point the finger of scorn at the other. It is as pretty a case of pot and kettle as could well bo conceived. All the Socialists, labour agitators, and self-appointed reconstructors of society are opposed to Federation, because it would probably .substitute a strong central Government for the present provincial substitutes which systematically truckle to the mob vote till they bring things to the very verge of anarchy. In view of such bitter opposition and such half-hearted support, it is extremely doubtful whether Australasia will taste the blessings of Federation this bout. A step in advance, however, will have been taken by the exhaustive discussion which has taken place, and, as soon as all parties can make up their minds to be contented with what is obviously fair, it may be hoped that a practical rapprochement will be arrived at.

For the East Sydney electorate there are three candidates in the field, Mr Pulsford, the well-known ex-Secretary of the Free Trade Association, Mr Bradley, a moderate Protectionist, strongly opposed to Federation, and Mr F. Cotton, a labour agitator and advocate of tho single-tax. Mr Pulsford is not allowed to speak at all, Mr Bradley lias moderately stormy meetings, and those of -Mr Cotton are orderly iu the extreme. It is not, however, the number who can be mustered to hoot, groan or applaud who fix the fate of an election, but tho number who can be induced to record their votes. None of the candidates are up to the East Sydney level, but the result of the election will be looked for with great interest, as it will show what the great middle class, who don't attend political meetings or howl at political speakers, think about the present aspect of affairs.

Mr Cotton discountenances lawless proceedings on the part of labour. He says he desires "evolution, not revolution"—a very praiseworthy utterance—bat it would be interesting to know whether he is or is not giving practical assistance to the Queensland shearers, whose defiance of the law is now becoming unpleasantly obvious even to their most partial sympathisers. Deeds speak louder than words, and men who try to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds are not. the men for the present crisis. Of course, it may be that Mr Cotton has openly and categorically denounced the insurrectionary doings iu Queensland, iu which c;ise his beautiful sentiment of evolution as opposed to revolution will have some justification. But until this is clear, one is in doubt as to which side of the fence he means to get down.

Mr B. R. Wise is almost the first politician of note who has ventured to express doubt whether it is necessary to maintain freedom of contract, or whether it would not be practicable to compel all employers to recognise trades union in any agreements which they may make with their men ; and, of course, it follows that he is also in doubt whether it wouid not be practicable to compel them to submit without attempting to help themselves iu the rupture of those agreements whenever the unions think it adviseable to order it. Mr Wise sets out by contending that freedom of contract leads to evil consequences unless the. parties to the contract stand on an equal footing. Then, reducing his own reasoning to a palpable absurdity, he proposes that every employer shall in employing labour be compelled to recognise the union ; but the individual employer is much more powerless in dealing with a union than the labourer in dealing with the employer. If it be said the employers' union could treat with the labour unions, the reply is that such a circuitous course would render business impossible. The. employment and direction of labour, to be effectively aud productively carried out, must be a matter between the individual employer and the individual workman. If unions can force themselves between, there i.s an end to all amicable and harmonious relations, to all promptitude and decision of action, and to all hope of pi-oli»■ in the employment of labour. When private profit ceases, public prosperity comes to ■an end. . hisli lie! ween man and man ran anil ought, to he secured by the law of the land, but the pressure of privat.fi organisations can only introduce tyranny. This is the reason whythe determination of the labour agitators to thrust themselves in where they are not wanted is so strongly resisted by employers, and is the reason also why the aggression against which the latter are defending themselves is so strongly enndopmed bv the presi fird pt'oplo