July 15, 1899. [.
THE SHIPPING CONFERENCE AND ITS BALLFUL EFFECT ON
BRITISH TRADE..
&
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
|
**
"
THE AREA OF EXEMPTION from LEKIN.
*
treaties Was
the Customs has been dictated by a spirit of great American trusts it is alleged, appar- prestige the members of the Shipping, Con- hostility to the trade of the colony, for such ently with some reason, that by the econference have had more to do with bringing allegations are contrary to the fact. The omies they are able to affect in production it about than the failures and mistakes of Customs Service has as much interest as the and distribution they are enabled to serve the all our diplomats and ministers put together, Hongkong Government in seeing the junk public on more advantagous terms than the for our prestige rests on our commercial trade flourish, as its revenue is immediately individual manufacturer working under a supremacy, and that supremacy is being affected by the trade. The myopic view system of unrestricted competition. The steadily undermined by the action of the taken by some controversialists on this sub-contention is that competition carried to ex- Shipping Conference. ject does not seem to take in the fact that the tremes becomes wasteful, and that the in- Foreign Customs Service was established in telligent organisation of industry on a large the interests of foreign trade and that it has scale is in the long run more profitable to well served those interests. The extension all tho infarosta concerned, iucluding those of its control to the whole of the distributing of the consumer. The same contention may
(Daily Press, 8th July.) trade carried on in native bottoms is desir- be applied to shipping, and in the inter-
Messrs. BANKER and Co.'s experiment able, and it would be a mistaken policy on view of the deputation with Mr. RITORIE in running a piece goods shop in the city the part of Hongkong to offer needless Sir JoHN JENKINS said " they had no ob-fo Canton will be watched with interest obstructions to such extension.
“jection to shipping firms and companies by foreign traders, since it raises the im- making arrangements among and between portant question of the area of exemption the trade of "themselves to do the best they could to from lekin. In his report on.
further their own commercial interests in Canton for 1898 Mr. Consul BRENAN competition with newcomers, with Contin- pointed out that while the intention "ental rivals, or otherwise, so long as this of the framers of our "was done without direct injury and special that imports in British ships should 'hardship to other interests. In the pre-pay only 5 per cent. ad valorem so long as sent case the hardship is that the Confer they were consumed in the port-that is, ence discriminates against the British the city and suburbs of Canton-and that manufacturer and merchant, andlit it is only an ad. itional half-duty should clear them of by rendering the boycotting of outside all duties on their way to any place in the steamers illegal, and so restoring free com- interior, the actual state of the case was far different; relying on the theory petition, that the British manufacturer and
that China as an independent power, merchant can be secured fair play in com- petition with his American and Continental is free to tax her own subjects as she rivals the sooner that step is taken the pleases, and assuming that the Concession is the area of exemption from lekin, the pro- The Hongkong Committee made "special viucial Government had narrowed the "reference to the advantages conferred on treaty right by confining its operation to "American cotton piece goods in the China British imported goods while they are in the. "market by the rates of freight charged hands of British subjects; once they are "by the Conference steamiers trom New sold to Chinese a tax euphemistically styled York to Hongkong and Shanghai, which terminal lekin or octroi is levied specially average from 25/- to 30/- per ton as com-
on such goods, and the practical outcome is 'pared with 57/6 from London and Liverpool that the duty authorised by treaty repre sents simply the share of the Central Go vernment in the taxation of imports. Further," continued Mr. BRENAN,
16
better.
"
56
(Daily Press 10th July.) The Committee that sat in Hongkong in 1896, appointed by H.E. the Governor in response to an enquiry from the Secretary of State asking whether there had been any and what displacement of British goods in this market, reported that there had been such a displacement. One of the causes assigned for the displacement was lower freights outwards from foreigu as compared with British ports, and this, the Committee regretted to say, was due to the action of the Shipping Conference (consisting chiefly of British steamship owners), which, while maintaining freights from British ports, carried cargo at a much lower rate from Continental and American ports, thus giving foreign manufacturers a virtual subsidy in their competition with British products. The Committee suggested that this question was of such paramount im- portance to British trade that it might fittingly form the subject of a searching investigation on the part of the home Gov- erument. Three years have passed and the baleful influence of the Shipping Con- ference on British trade continues unabated. Manufacturers and merchants are growing impatient under the grievous and unjust burden imposed upon them, and on the 8th June last a deputation waited upon Mr. RITCHIE at the Board of Trade to draw attention to the subject. Sir JoHN JENKINS, one of the deputation, said the iron and steel trades and other great industries had largely lost their Indian, South African, and Australian markets to Germany and Belgium because of shipping rings and their policy, which benefited the foreign manufacturer and merchant at the expense of their British rivals. Other speakers spoke in the same sense, and Mr. RITCHIE Jeans virtually promised an enquiry-by the Board of Trade, but at the same time pointed out the difficulties of the question, which, he said, was really one of combination, and combinations were not illegal.
.
There can be no question that combina- tions are not illegal, but they may be used for an illegal purpose; in which case they become subject to the law; and there would be little difficulty in making such an amend- ruent of the law as would render illegal the boycotting of outside steamers on the part of the Shipping Conference. By this boy- exercised through the rebate system, competition in freights is stifled at British ports, where the Conference demands full rates, while at foreign ports it is willing to accept much lower rates. The Confer- ence, however, even with its boycot of out- side steamers, would not be "seriously ob- jected to were it not for the bounty it gives to foreign trade. In connection with the
cot
"outwards. The same remarks apply to the shipment of machinery from the United States to China, the freight for which is about forty per cent, lower than that from "British ports." In this connection we would invite attention to the following figures from the Chinese Customs returns giving the imports of certain classes of piece goods from Great Britain and America respectively for the years 1888 and 1898 :—
ENGLISH.
1888
1898 Drills pieces 542,826 73,356
106,342 Jeans
123,599 Sheetings...
1,039,642 523,366
Total 1,688,810 720,321
AMERICAN.
Drills
Sheetings ..
#
pieces
1888
1898 496,096 1,314,761 8,412 105,759 1,557,830 2,483,991
Total..... 2,062,338 3,904,511 Thus while British trade in these articles is only 42 per cent. of what it was ten years ago American trade has increased by almost 90 per cent. ; in other words, the que has fallen to less than half of what it was, while the other has nearly dubled. The preferential freights accorded by British steamers to American goods may not be the sole or principal cause of the movement indicated by the above figures, but that they have had a good deal to do with it is indubitable. And these same British shipowners, who thus discriminate against their own country mea and favour the foreigner, with the result that trade passes into foreign hands, will readily join in the cry about the loss of British prestige in the Far East. If there has been any loss of
18
as buyers from any shop opened by a foreigner beyond the limits of the Con- "cession would be called upon to pay the
(s
#
"
:
extra treaty taxes, the right to trade freely "in the city and suburbs of Canton has "likewise been extinguished. Indeed, made "confident by the long apathy of the "British people, the local authorities would "throw obstacles in the way of any enter- prising person who should attempt to rent or hire such a shop.' It appears an enterprising person has been found to put this question to the test, and that the Chinese authorities are, as predicted by Mr. BRENAN, throwing obstacles in his way. In the House of Commons, on the 2nd June, Mr. BRODRICK in reply to a question said that a British subject named BANKER having intimated towards the end of last year his desire to open a piece-goods hop in the native city of Canton the Vice roy requested the Consul to order BANKER to close it, basing his opposition on the third section of the Chefoo Convention; and that the Consul in reply pointed out that the section in question was abrogated by the additional article signed in 1885, and stated that he was informing Mr. BANKER that he was at liberty to pursue his business, but that in the event of the two Governments subsequently deciding that the area of exemption from lekin was to be confined to the foreign concessions he would be liable to the payment of lekin, The clauses of the Chefoo Convention referred to provided that" with references "to the area within which, according to the
treaties in force, lekin ought not to be "collected on foreign goods at the open ports, i
Sir Thomas WADE agrees to move his "Government to allow the ground rented
-