“We in Australia have had great difficulties to overcome, and a certain amount of friction has necessarily arisen between the States and the federal authority, but the history of the United States and of the Dominion shows that such difficulties and friction cannot be avoided, but can always be surmounted. With the exception of a few discontented persons, I think nobody in Australia would be in favour of a return to the old order of things, and it is already clear that the local jealousies which hampered Australian progress are vanishing. When I was in British Columbia nine years ago, I tried hard to find a man who believed that the act of confederation should be undone; but I could not discover such a person. There may be a few ‘Blue Noses’ in Nova Scotia who would like to see confederation abolished, but I never met one. In either case, the fact that Annexationists are few—too few to be counted—in Canada, explains my failure. And once South African Federation is an accomplished fact—and though the racial antithesis, as was the case in Canada, renders the accomplishment more difficult than in Australia, where a difference in opinion as to fiscal policy was the chief obstacle—I am very sure that the vast majority of South Africans, whether British or Dutch, will refuse to contemplate a change to the old state of local jealousies. The sooner South African Federation comes, the better for South Africa.”
CHURCH STREET, PRETORIA THE APPROACH TO THE TOWN.
Drawn by Donald E. M’Cracken.
Asked to answer the question: Should federation come before the new Colonies receive self-government, or concurrently with that event? Sir Edward Barton replied that in his opinion either course would create difficulties for the future.
“Australian Federation,” he continued, “came out of the will of the people. The result of a referendum proved that a majority of the people was in favour of federation, and all the States consented to the terms thereof. Now if the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies, communities that have enjoyed a form of self-government in the past, had not free choice of assent or refusal, and joined the South African Federation under compulsion (no matter how slight a measure of compulsion), constitutional difficulties might spring up in the hereafter. Disputes might arise between the federal authority and these two States, and they would say, ‘We were not asked for our consent, we had not complete freedom of choice.’ In any case, representation must be given to them, and it would be awkward if two out of the five Federal States or Provinces were trying to overthrow the federation. I do not say this would happen, but the possibility of such an emergency should be seriously considered. It would be safe, I think, to work and wait for a majority in favour of federation; more especially as there has existed and still exists, as I am informed, a strong feeling that the interests of both peoples in South Africa would be furthered by such a measure.”
IV
Neither Mr. Seddon nor Sir Wilfrid Laurier granted the writer’s request for an expression of opinion in regard to the possibility or probability of South African Federation. Mr. Seddon, though he is always ready to advise the various Provinces of the Empire in commercial matters, is averse to interfering in other people’s politics. Moreover the word “federation” has a discomfortable sound in the ears of his New Zealand constituents; to a few it suggests Rossetti’s “might-have-been,” to most its echo is a more or less decided “certainly not.”
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who has suffered much from the too imaginative interviewer, both in the United States and in France, makes it a principle not to be interviewed. But a day or two after he had courteously declined to grant the writer’s request, he was good enough to allude to the subject of South African Federation in a speech at Edinburgh, from which the following excerpt is taken: “In my humble opinion,” said the Canadian Premier, with reference to the attempt of Mr. Rhodes to secure the unification of South Africa, “Mr. Rhodes made one mistake. He made the mistake of being too impatient. Had he allowed time for development, had he allowed the Dutch population to get reconciled to the idea of British citizenship, they would have had much sooner than will be the case the federation of South Africa, which is the only future of that great country.”
To judge from the spirit of his utterances in Canada on the subject of South Africa, it would appear that Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s opinions as to the best means of working towards the end of South African Federation do not materially differ from those of Sir Edmund Barton. He believes that the free consent of the new Colonies should be obtained, and that the policy pursued with regard to Manitoba by the “Fathers of Confederation”—a policy of which he disapproved at the time, a policy which led to a long series of disputes between Manitoba and the Dominion Government—should not be pursued in the case of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. It will be remembered that the “Red River Settlement” received Provincial status on condition of becoming a member of confederation, and that the terms of membership were accepted under compulsion, and in the hope that they could be bettered.