Thence, by an easy transition of thought, the objection is extended to all labourers whose competition, through the stress of necessity, may tend to reduce wages. The indigent Italian or German is equally undesirable, as are indigent Englishmen, who alone, among Europeans, are likely to arrive in large numbers. Some of them, it is known, have been assisted to emigrate, by philanthropic agencies or otherwise, because they were unable to earn a livelihood at home. South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, and New Zealand seek to exclude paupers by the provision that the owner or master of a ship bringing persons who are likely to become a charge upon the public or any charitable institution, may be called upon to execute a bond to pay all expenses incurred within five years for the maintenance or support of such persons. But the workman reserves his strongest condemnation for the proposal { 295} that he should be compelled to contribute, through taxation or Custom duties, to State-aided immigration, which increases the number of his competitors. Herein is seen the cloven foot of the capitalist, which must be concealed, except in Queensland, where capital and labour are in open antagonism and the former is at present in the ascendant.
The ultimate development of protective ideas is found in the annual tax levied on foreign commercial travellers in New Zealand and in the desire to subject immigrants to physical as well as pecuniary and racial tests. In New Zealand the Undesirable Immigrants Exclusion Bill, and the equally unsuccessful Public Health Bill of 1896, forbade masters of ships, under a heavy penalty, to introduce persons who are consumptive into the Provinces. Consumption, it is known, has proved deadly to the Maoris, and, to an even greater extent, to half-castes.
It is not my intention to discuss the wisdom of the measures by which Australians seek to keep out Asiatics, indigent Europeans, criminals, and persons in ill-health. The Imperial Government, of course, can have no objection to the imposition of pecuniary disqualifications which, being of general application, do not conflict with treaty obligations, though the policy is diametrically opposed to that which has prevailed hitherto in England. I merely wish to point out the strength of Australasian opposition to unrestricted competition, and to express { 296} considerable sympathy with workmen who, having seen, or having learnt from their parents, how much misery and pauperism are to be found in older countries, are inhospitable to strangers and will do all in their power to prevent a fall to a similar level. Many of them have noted the existence of destitution in Sydney and Melbourne, and dread the operation of any cause which would be likely to intensify it.
