The Guardian (Brisbane), Saturday, 10 February
1866, p. 4
The address of the Hon. JOHN DOUGLAS to the electors of Port
Curtis, on the resignation of his seat in the Legislative Assembly as their
representative, is in no sense a remarkable production, unless it be for its
wordy ambiguity and evasion of all topics likely to give rise to disagreeable
comment among the people to whom it is addressed. It is neither characterised
by that heartiness or candour, which all who know Mr. DOUGLAS are very willing
to give him credit for, and on reading it over one is inevitably led to the
conclusion, that it is a laboured attempt to justify himself for the course he
has taken when all the time he is not very clear in his own mind as to whether
he has done exactly right in taking such a course. If this were not so he would
surely have had some clear and definite reasons to give to the electors of Port
Curtis, for his accepting office under a Minister whose policy he has over and
over again condemned, and to whom he has hitherto been a very able and
persistent opponent. Can it be that Mr. DOUGLAS has in no sense become a
convert to the policy adopted and carried out by the HERBERT-MACALISTER
Ministry? If so, we too have doubts as to whether he has done exactly right in
giving up his seat in the Legislative Assembly for the purpose of representing
that Ministry (minus Mr. HERBERT) in the Legislative Council. His address to
the electors of Port Curtis fails to show that he has changed his views in any
one particular upon all the principal questions which have any hitherto come up
for discussion, and which, for a considerable time to come, will require to be
dealt with in one form or other by the Legislature.
Certainly, he tells the electors of the Port Curtis district
that “the public mind is no longer divided on the railway question, as it was
during the sessions of 1863 and 1864; and that, “at that time, in common with
Mr. MACKENZIE and some other members of Parliament,” he “took a part in the
opposition to the adoption of the unusually narrow gauge which then appeared to
be unsupported by sufficient experience.”
But this can scarcely be news to the electors of the Port
Curtis district now. What they would most likely be anxious to know at the
present time is, how it has come to pass that Mr. DOUGLAS has so reconciled
himself to the railway system, and the “unusually narrow gauge,” as to take
office under the man who introduced it and fought for it, step by step, until
it was finally adopted. Is it because the honorable gentleman has at length
become a believer in the “unusually narrow gauge,” or, that he now sees that
the people were right in supporting Mr. MACALISTER’S railway system? Neither of
these reasons are alleged as a cause for his taking office under Mr. MACALISTER.
He merely says, “The large expenditure thus authorised has stimulated
enterprise, and concurrently with our immigration system, has contributed to
our remarkable progress.”
On the question of immigration he is very oracular, but
exceedingly obscure, so much so indeed, that it is impossible to understand
what he means, unless he wishes to signify that it is desirable to encourage
immigration, and one mode of doing this is by having railways from Ipswich and
Rockhampton into the interior. If this is what Mr. DOUGLAS really means, he
states it as his reason for ceasing to oppose the railway policy of Mr. MACALISTER.
This appears to be one of the worst reasons which could be given, because, in
the very next paragraph of his address he says, “It is in the serious amounts
required for country roads, and for the improvement of our river navigation,
that I recognise our departure from strict principles of economy.” Surely if
railways from Ipswich and Rockhampton are desirable as lines of communication
with the interior for immigrants, good country roads and improved river
navigation, are still more desirable.
A railway from Rockhampton to the Dawson, and another from
Ipswich to Dalby or Condamine, will only be beneficial to the districts,
through which they pass, and to which they lead. They will be a positive injury
to other districts such as Wide Bay and the Burnett, by the superior
attractions the railway districts will offer to capital and immigrants, and in
advocating the construction of railways we have never failed to recognise this
fact. To districts like the Wide Bay and Burnett, then, where, from the sparseness
of the population, a Railway could not be remunerative for many years to come,
the only compensation the Government can make is, by removing all obstructions
to the navigation of the rivers, and by constructing good ordinary roads. The
inhabitants of these districts are entitled to have works like these carried
out, because it is only by such means that population will be attracted there
at all; and so long as such works are carried out efficiently, and the
Government obtain a fair amount of labor for their money, we cannot “recognise
any departure from strict principles of economy.” Mr. DOUGLAS says:—“The
country roads may, in accordance with the practice elsewhere, be supported by
municipal taxation; the harbors and rivers by trust dues.”
This is absolutely impossible in districts so thinly
populated as those to which we refer, and if it were possible it would be
unjust in the highest degree to enforce such a regulation. What for instance
would be the rate of dues required from vessels trading to Maryborough if the
whole cost of maintaining its harbor and river had to be entirely defrayed from
that source of revenue. And again, it would be the grossest injustice to
require the inhabitants of that district to defray the whole cost of making, and
keeping their country roads while we make them pay their full share towards the
expenses of the railways which are doing them an injury.
On the subject of the Land Laws Mr. DOUGLAS is ominously
silent, although there is little doubt but that this will be the principal
subject for discussion in the ensuing session. From the ground he took,
however, during the discussion of Mr. MACALISTER’S bill on the subject last
session, we are led to hope that Mr. DOUGLAS will be disposed to consider the
claims of the Agriculturalists in a far more liberal spirit than the majority
of the members of the Legislative Council were disposed to do, when the subject
was last under discussion, and that, in this particular at any rate, he will be
in a position to render good service to the country.
On the question of National Education, Mr. DOUGLAS’S sentiments
are pretty well known, and he gives no hint that they have undergone any change
during the recess. But here again his chief, Mr. MACALISTER, is the champion of
the very system of education, which Mr. DOUGLAS has made such strenuous
attempts to alter; therefore, it is not probable that he will be able to do
much towards realizing the object sought to be attained by Bishop TUFNELL and
Bishop QUINN. At the same time, it will be well for the friends of the National
system to be on the alert.
It is for Mr. DOUGLAS himself to decide—whether or not the position of Government representative in the “sleepy hollow” of the Legislative Council is a fitting place for him. He says:—“I trust that the influential position in which I have been placed may conduce to my experience, and may render me more capable of being useful to my fellow-colonists.” We trust that it may, at the same time, we cannot resist the conviction that his tenure of office will neither be a long nor distinguished one.
