Page:Speech by Sir John Forrest - Western Australia - 1900.pdf/13

 considered at this moment. But I consider that in the very first session of the Federal Parliament, whoever represents Western Australia in that Parliament, must demand that it shall deal with this important question. (Applause.) When that railway is built as it will be built very shortly, I am certain—(cheers)—what will Fremantle then be? Will it not be known as the Golden Gate of the western side of Australia, just as San Francisco is known as the Golden Gate of the western side of the United States of America? When we think of the great change that is likely soon to occur—with the mail steamers calling at Fremantle, with a railway running through Perth and through the goldfields to all parts of Australia, with thousands annually visiting Fremantle, Perth, and the goldfields who never have the opportunity of seeing us now, what a new vision arises, and what new avenues are seen for trade, for commerce, and for enterprise in the development of the colony? (Applause.)

If this result is to be realised, and I see no reason why it should not be, how can that which many have been speaking so much about come to pass, namely, that property in Perth, Fremantle, and other places is going to be lessened in value? All I can say is that I do not know any country where Federation has injured property. We do not hear of it in the United States, or in Canada. New York, Chicago, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, and other places throughout the United States and Canada have not been injured. Nothing is ever heard of any of those places being ruined, and why should it be so in Western Australia, with its splendid geographical situation, being the nearest to the markets of Europe of any of the colonies? The goldfields of Western Australia are the greatest in the world, and are almost unrivalled, and the colony has magnificent timber, a productive soil, and a good climate. With such immense resources, with free communication to all the markets of the mother land and of Australia for everything we can produce, why should we not hold our own and flourish as well as any of the other colonies?

Most of you have, no doubt, travelled throughout Australia as I have. I have travelled from Adelaide to Sydney occasionally, and recently I journeyed by train from Adelaide to Brisbane, and as I travelled along by train the thought often recurred to my mind, from a business point of view, that there was not much risk in joining in partnership with people who lived on those lands and owned that splendid country. (Applause.) It is indeed a glorious prospect to join in Federation for all national purposes. If those who are opposed to Federation, and think that the colony has everything to lose and nothing to gain, would take a trip through Eastern Australia and see those who are inhabiting it, and how they are utilising it, they would come back with different impressions.

I would like to say a word in regard to those who look at Federation solely from a soil producer's and manufacturer's point of view. I would like to ask my friends the farmers and manufacturers, for they are my best friends, a question. Both farmers and manufacturers are producers trying to do the best they can for themselves and for the colony. I wish to ask them as business men whether they think they are likely to get three and a half or four years' protection without Federation? I ask them is not three and a half or four years full fiscal freedom—for that is what it comes to—as a certainty, better than an uncertainty? I think it is. I would ask them to look into that matter very closely and very carefully, because already what do we find? The growers of cereals are willing to sacrifice the pastoralists to start with. Do they think that the pastoralists, who have representatives in the Legislature, are going to support taxes on flour, and everything they want in the pastoral districts? Are they going to tax these things which the farmers grow if the farmers are going to abolish the small duty on the pastoralists' meat? I think myself that the pastoralist will say that if we take away his little protection he is going to have the protection taken off all round. The result will be that the farmers will not get the support of the