Page:History of West Australia.djvu/317

 Rh

Negotiations were entered into between the Government and Sir Julius Vogel in 1883 to lay a cable to the North-west Coast, connecting with the European system; but the latter abandoned the enterprise. Messrs. Millar Brothers proposed in 1888 to run a cable line from the same coast to India or Ceylon. While the negotiations were in progress, the Colonial Office came to terms with the Eastern Extension Company to land a cable in Roebuck Bay from Java. Millar Brothers retired, and the line was laid by the company from Banjoewangie to Broome, in February, 1889. Under agreement with the other colonies, Western Australia promised to transmit all cablegrams over her lines at half-rates, under a guarantee of receipts at £1,000 per annum. A telephonic exchange system was opened at Perth on 1st December, 1887, and at Fremantle on January, 1888.

It has already been announced that one syndicate offered to construct harbour facilities at Fremantle, on land-grant or debenture principles. All the proposals made during the history of the colony had not satisfied local Governments that they would be effectual in making Fremantle secure for the accommodation of vessels. Sir John Coode had plans submitted to him in the seventies, and he discountenanced them. He proposed two alternative schemes—one requiring an expenditure of £638,000 to secure twenty-nine feet of water in a safe anchorage; the other requiring £242,000 to secure twenty feet. The various offers to build railways to Eucla were, of course, dependent on the Fremantle Harbour being improved. Careful surveys of the harbour were made in 1886, and Sir John Coode, at the invitation of the Government, visited the colony, and spent nearly five weeks in making inspections of the harbour and of Swan River. In his report, he expressed the opinion that the difficulties attendant upon the formation and maintenance of suitable and safe approaches in Cockburn Sound were so great and would be accompanied by such a large expenditure, that there would be no alternative but to consider the utilisation of the shelter and deep water as entirely unattainable. It had been proposed to construct a river entrance and a canal to Rocky Bay; of the erection of moles, Sir John Coode said that the cost of such sheltering works would considerably exceed that of suitable structures adopted to meet the required wants if undertaken in the proper positions; and was therefore inadmissible. There was a grave objection to a corresponding treatment of the existing entrance to the river, for, in consequence of the very limited volume of tidal and back-water available for scouring purposes, there were strong grounds for anticipating that a sand-bar would grow up at the improved entrance which would probably seriously prejudice its utility. He did not think the Rocky Bay project was feasible. To provide, he continued, for the unimpeded movement of the sand, it would be requisite that any sheltering work at Fremantle must be detached from the mainland, connection with the shore being effected by means of an open viaduct so arranged as to admit of the unrestricted passage of the sand without causing its deposition. The Government did not determine for some years upon any elaborate scheme of harbour works. Jetties and wharves were constructed at new north and north-western ports. An arrangement was entered into whereby a vessel was employed at the joint cost of the Imperial and Colonial Governments, to make coastal surveys. Regular steamship connection was established with Singapore.

The expenditure of these large sums of money on public works naturally buoyed up the colony and afforded a temporary relief. Fortunately for Western Australia, during the remaining years of her history one circumstance and another arose which, except for very short periods, prevented the return of general depression. Public works construction supplied labour and money, extension of north-west settlement caused the pastoral industry to expand, and gold discoveries attracted the much needed population—in small numbers at first, but sufficient to promote a more healthy tone. Loan moneys were an excellent equivalent for convict expenditure, and whereas the convicts received no pay, the labourers on these later public works obtained wages and kept money circulating. We have already referred to errors in the Treasury under which there was a deficit instead of a surplus as was supposed. As one result of the situation, combined with desire to encourage agricultural production, the colony turned nearer to protection. The change was not made without a struggle, but the free traders missed their previous strong supporter, Governor Weld.

After it was discovered in 1879 that the finances were in an unhealthy condition, and that there was actually a deficit to be wiped off, the Government introduced a tariff bill into the Council which, they suggested, should remain in operation for only three years. A slight increase was made in spirits, tobacco, sugar, and some other necessaries of life, but the important points of the bill lay in the decision to custom agricultural products. Live stock remained on the free list. Flour, corn, and other grains (excluding rice), bran, pollard, meal, preserved meats, agricultural implements, fencing wire, wheat sacks, and wool bales were subject to a 10 per cent. duty, hay and chaff to 12½ per cent., butter to 2d. a lb., and potatoes and onions to 10s. a ton. The free list was thus considerably reduced. The Government explained in the House in October, when it was before the Committee, that the measure had nothing to do with the principle of free trade versus protection; it was a mere question of revenue. Sir Luke S. Leake expressed astonishment that it was proposed to tax flour, and moved as an amendment that flour, bran, pollard, meal, corn and other grains, be placed on the free list. Mr. S.H. Parker seconded, and bemoaned the change in the Government policy. Mr. M. Fraser protested that it was not a change of policy, but a temporary expedient to tide over a financial difficulty. Messrs. Marmion, Harper, and Carey supported the amendment; but Mr. L.C. Burges held that these duties would prove of benefit to the farmer and public alike, and hoped that protection would save the colony the £30,000 or £40,000 annually paid to the South Australian farmer. Mr. J.H. Monger asserted that a duty of 20s. a ton on flour would make no difference to the poor man. On the other hand, it would increase the number of farmers who, if guaranteed 5s. a bushel for their wheat, would widen their wheat fields. The amendment was defeated by twelve votes to seven, and the Government proposals were carried.

Vigorous complaints were made, in and out of the House, during the two following years, against the heavy taxes on the working classes. In 1880, Mr. Randell, in the debate on the Address in Reply, spoke earnestly in opposition to the protective tariff. He said that the poorer classes were over-taxed, and that the rich did not bear their proportionate share. Mr. Lee-Steere did not think there were any poor in the colony in the sense in which the expression was understood in England. As the wealthy classes, he affirmed, consumed greater quantities of dutiable goods than the poor, it followed that they contributed as much, proportionately, to the revenue. But on this