PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
|| | || || | || | || | |||||||
Reference :-
C.O-885
17 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
1
20
and this combined with the saving in fuel and warehouse charges has made them more profitable in such cases.
The Straits Conference destroyed this trade, presumably because they objected to the low freights. The matter is described by Mr. A--—.
'Some time ago (1896-1897) a trade sprang up between Singapore and Britain and Europe, in the light timbers of the Malay Peninsula
the
sailing vessel rates, in the vicinity of 20s. per ton, just suited and aided the trade
Thereupon
the Conference issued a circular, on 9th December 1897, warning Singapore merchants that to ship any cargo via the Cape would invalidate Conference returns. This rule was brought into force, and of course the steamer freights (double) killed the trade
Sailing vessel shipments via the Cape to Marseilles are permitted; but not to Britain.
"The law of the Conference penalising sailing vessels came into operation in the latter part of 1897, and I think I am correct in saying, that since then, not one single sailing vessel has loaded in Singapore for the United Kingdom."
Part of the circular referred to will be found in Appendix H.
v. (e)-Fluctuations in Freight Rates.
It is quite clear that the Conferences tend to keep rates uniform. Special stress is laid upon this in the New South Wales Report.
The letters from firms in that Report agree on the whole that this uniformity is an advantage to the importer, as it tends to prevent sudden fluctuation in prices.
The letter from Messrs.
& Co., furnished
by the Acting Governor of the Straits Settlements, notes that the members of the Conference make this claim.
v. (f)—Dock Facilities.
No Colony mentions the superior attractions which are alleged to be possessed by Continental docks (Hamburg, Antwerp, &c.) over British docks.
Effect of Combinations.
The Conferences have aroused violent opposition in the East and South Africa, but very little else- where.
It may be assumed (see p. 23) that there is little if any ill-effect in places where, although an agreement is in force, the Government does not know of its existence.
The West African Colonies do not seem to think that there is any special effect. The Commissioner for the Niger Coast Protectorate expresses the opinion that "this monopoly
is not wielded
*
"with due regard to the interest of the British commercial community or of the Governments "which are bound to support it" and complains of slow and irregular transport and “ Bevere hand- ling of cargo.
33
21
In South Africa it is only necessary to refer to the resolutions of the Legislatures in Appendices F. and G.; but the Governor of Natal seems to have some reason on his side in expressing the opinion that foreign competition is not so serious a matter as is sometimes supposed. He points out that the whole world outside the British Empire only supplies one- fifth of Natal's imports, and that two-thirds of that one-fifth is carried in British ships. One-third of the exports go to foreign countries, of which one- third is carried by British ships.
In the Straits Settlements the late Governor called the Conference " a combination where powers have been used to the detriment of British "interests and the disadvantage of trade.”
<
The Acting Governor in his reply to the con- fidential circular drew attention to the injuries quoted on pages 10 and 16, and requested to be allowed to quash the Conference as an unregistered and therefore, illegal society.
As to Hong Kong, see pages 13 and 14. The Governor adds: "It may be broadly stated that, so "far as a country's trade can be strangled by adverse discrimination, British trade to the East is being affected by the action of the British and Foreign steamship lines belonging to the Conference and controlling the Far Eastern Trade."
44
46
*
"
The Collector of Customs, New South Wales, states that "amongst the leading business houses, this Ring' is regarded favourably, as it enables them to carry on trade without the risk of violent "and unexpected fluctuations in freight rates and
without undue restraint."
The reports from the agents of shipping lines in South Australia practically agree with this.
In both cases, however, the opinion seems to imply "from the point of view of the merchant,' as the facts given as to differential freights would clearly show disadvantage to the British producer. I do not understand that this is excluded.
In New Zealand the "evidence
to show
seems
the general result to be "detrimental to the interests of British trade with
"the Colonies" (see Appendix D.).
No effect is referred to by the American Colonies.
REMEDIES.
These, of course, are only proposed by Colonies which object to the existence of "Conferences."
The withdrawal of subsidies to British lines included in the "Rings " is proposed as a means of preventing agreements injurious to trade; on the other hand, it is suggested that the grant of subsidies to British lines might strengthen them sufficiently to drive out the foreigners, who are held responsible. The Governor of the Gold Coast thinks that the British company might, if necessary, be aided by subsidy against the subsidised Woermann Line.
The South African Legislatures favour the use of the mail subsidy as a lever for concessions (see Appendices F. and G.).
The confidential Hong Kong Committee makes a similar suggestion.
น 46812,
F