PUBLIC RECORD
T
OFFICE
C.O.8
Reference :-
885
18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
Thirteenth Day.
8 May 1907.
COASTWISE TRADE.
20
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: 1 thought I would take advantage of this opportunity of putting this to you.
MY. DEAKIN: Certainly. I wish I had at hand more detailed knowledge.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the United Kingdom, the interests of British shipping are not thought to be prejudiced by the very small amount of foreign shipping which enters into our coasting trade. The tonnage of foreign vessels with cargoes in the United Kingdom coasting trade is less than I per cent. of the total-half a million tons out of a total of 65,000,000. Still less are our interests menaced by the few tons of shipping of the countries which exclude our ships from their own coasting trade (only one- eighth per cent. of the total). Apart, altogether from the question of reservation, it is clear that the assimilation of our world-wide “inter-Imperial trade to mere coasting trade, could not be effected without a considerable departure, not only from our own long-established practice, but also from the practice of other nations except, perhaps, Russia and the United States. The term "coasting" voyage, used in its natural sense, implies a voyage from one port to another in the same country without the vessel touching for purposes of trade at any intermediate port not belonging to that country, and if this definition be accepted as accurate, there would seem to be
grave difficulties in the way of the extension of regulations affecting such voyages to long oversea voyages, involving, in many cases, calls at intermediate foreign ports.
Mr. DEAKIN: That would apply to the request about the Pacific Islands being treated as coastwise trade in Australia.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Are you going to bring that before the Conference?.
to us.
Mr. DEAKIN: I understand that was referred from your Conference
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I had to rule that out at the Shipping Confe- rence. Surely, the question of the Pacific is one for the whole Empire to discuss, because Canada would be just as much interested as Australia would be in the Pacific. I felt that we could not, especially in the absence of the Canadian representative, discuss the question of the Pacific.
Passing from general considerations to methods of action, it is clear that the only method of closing the inter-Imperial trade to foreign vessels, or any class of them, is by Imperial legislation or Order in Council. It is needless to say, that such a measure would attract great attention, and would be regarded by foreign countries as a declaration of policy by the greatest maritime country. Countries with treaty rights would pour in protests; those without them would probably take not less effective steps to secure their interests either by retaliation or bounties. Moreover, it is to be feared that such a step would be regarded as a sign of decadence and of fear on our part. Countries which reserve their trade are influenced by the fact that they cannot compete on equal terms with British shipping. Every country trying to overtake us in the race will be proportionately encouraged to greater exertions by a step suggesting that we cannot hold our own against them on equal terms.
Lastly, the purely treaty difficulty is not to be lightly set aside. The magnitude and nature of this difficulty differs much according to whether the
21
proposed reservation is intended to apply to the inter-Imperial carrying trade in both directions, or only to the outward trade from the United Kingdom to the Colonies, and to trade between the Colonies. If extended to inward trade from the Colonies to the United Kingdom as I understand it is-the exclusion of foreign ships generally would raise questions in connection with a number of important treaties, some of which it is in the highest degree to our interest to maintain. If confined to outward trade to particular Colonies, the question depends upon the treaties which happen to bind the particular Colonies in question. Of course, if the exclusion be confined to the countries (United States and Russia) which exclude us, there is no treaty obstacle to the reservation of inter-Imperial trade, but neither does there seem to be any material advantage in such a course. I am going to put in a memorandum— I need not trouble the Conference by reading it-as to (i) the participation of foreign vessels in our inter-Imperial and coasting trades; (ii) the practice of foreign countries with respect to reserving or opening their inter-Imperial or coasting trades; and (iii) the treaty position. It has been circulated.
That is all I have to say.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: This shows the great difficulty there is in having a uniform policy for the Empire so far as questions have been brought up at the Conference. As I understand your remark, Mr. Lloyd George, the resolution as drafted and submitted by Mr. Deakin to be re-affirmed, which was passed in 1902, affects only two nations-Russia and the United States.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: You say you have no competition with the United States in that branch of business.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: None.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: And very little with Russia. Therefore it does not affect you at all.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: But it affects us tremendously on the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Deakin, representing Australia, and Sir Joseph Ward representing New Zealand, and I representing Canada, are very much hit by it. You have not competition with America but we have. The competition is very unfair. If the Americans choose to exclude us from their coasting trade, which is supposed to be generally a matter pertaining to the shipping of any nation, I do not think we should have much to say, but the Americans have extended their coasting law in a manner which seems to be absolutely unprecedented, if not trespassing upon international law, by extending coasting law to Honolulu. It places us at a tremendous disadvantage that shipping from Australia to San Francisco cannot call at Honolulu. A ship leaving Vancouver for Australia or New Zealand cannot call at Honolulu. Ít is a very serious impediment to our shipping. We have had to submit to it. We could not avoid it.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Why?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Because we have had ships which traded between Australia and the United Kingdom which want to call at Honolulu, and they cannot do it now. There is the difficulty.
¡ 49270.
F
Thirteenth Day. 8 May 1907,
COASTWISE TRADE. (Mr.
Lloyd George.)
Page 720Page 721
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
19
Reference :-
C.O.88
18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
Thirteenth Day.
8 May 1907.
COASTWISE TRADE.
say:
22
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Have you attempted to legislate at all?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: What legislation can we do? We can only "We will do the same thing to you.' We have offered again and again to reciprocate with the United States in the exchange of coastwise trade. We have a large coasting trade between Canada and the United States on the lakes. It would be to their advantage and our advantage to have coasting trade, because there is so much shipping on these lakes, and it is getting more and more voluminous every year, as everyone knows. It is a serious impediment on our shipping, but the United States have absolutely refused. So far as that goes they are within their rights, but when they go beyond their natural rights, and apply those to a country like Honolulu and to the Philippines also as part of the coast of the United States, although 1,000 miles away, that is most unfair treatment. At all events, it seems to me an abuse of the powers of legislation, and therefore the question is one of great interest I can see the force of what you now tell us. It would expose us to retaliation and hurt our shipping, so the question is one that requires very serious consideration.
to us.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But we cannot hit them. That is our trouble.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: But we can, and we do not want to, or we would and perhaps we cannot. That is the difference. This resolution does not go very far. It does not bind you to anything. It simply asks for further consideration on the subject, and I think it worth consideration.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As far as the Mother Country is concerned, we cannot possibly object to what Sir Wilfrid Laurier suggests now, if the resolution is to relate only to the Colonies.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: I see the force of your objection, and you see the force of ours.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree; if I were a Canadian I would hit them if I could.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: We intend to, if we can. We ask you not to bind yourself to the resolution, but simply to inquire into the question. The question has never been properly looked into, but only superficially. It rests on international as well as other law, and I simply ask that the resolution be re-affirmed for further inquiry and nothing else. I would not ask the Conference to pledge itself to any definite action, but I think we are right in asking for the resolution to be re-affirmed for the purpose of going deeper into the subject. The conflict of interests between the British interest and that of the Dependencies on the Pacific Ocean is one which ought to be looked into, and I think under such circumstances the resolution ought to be re-affirined.
Sir JOSEPH WARD: It would be just as reasonable if the British Government were to lay it down as a principle that Mauritius was to be looked upon as part of the coast of England, as what America has been doing to us and to England as well in the matter of Honolulu. We cannot trade between New Zealand and San Francisco with our steamers for the reason that the American law extending to Honolulu is, that not a passenger on that island can be shipped by one of our steamers, and not a ton of cargo. Yet
23
that place is some four days' steam from San Francisco out in the Pacific Ocean. When we submitted a resolution at the Conference over which Mr. Lloyd George presided to discuss the propriety of dealing with our New Zealand shipping to a number of islands in the Pacific, we are told that we cannot control them and that foreigners and everybody else can do as they like there. As a general principle, we do not take exception to that. We want the right to govern our own ships as to pay and everything; but when we go to a place on the road to England, under the laws of America, extending thousands of miles from the coast of the mainland, we are obliged to travel in an American ship only, and not have one of our ships under contract with them. This resolution, to my mind, is most important. That whole aspect of it comes under the scope of it and is deserving of great consideration at the hands of the British Government.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You want us to consider the question of refusing to foreign ships the privilege of trading between British Possessions. It is of no use our considering it. We have considered it over and over again. We could not hit Russia or the United States.
115.
Sir JOSEPH WARD: I will put a question, but I do not suppose you can answer it; it gives the clearest illustration of what has been done to If a law were submitted from our country about it, it would necessarily require to be held over before the King's consent could be given. If we were to suggest the imposing of a law in New Zealand to say that American shipping trade to New Zealand passing on to Australian ports was to be con- sidered, between Auckland and Sydney, as working in a coastwise trade and not allowed to ship a passenger or a ton of cargo from Auckland to Sydney- 1,200 miles and that trade was confined to British ships, you would have to hold that law over because it would be in contravention of what has hitherto prevailed. Yet what we complain of and made representations about time and again are in somewhat the, same position. A British ship, a P. and O., an Orient, Union New Zealand line, New Zealand Shipping Company or Australian vessel, cannot trade from America, and call at Honolulu, en route to New Zealand and take a passenger or a ton of cargo for the reason that it is controlled under the American coastwise law. There must be some way of reciprocity to prevent it.
It is grossly unjust. It seems to me it is a straining of the idea of what coastwise trade is to such an extent as almost to make us believe we are living in the Dark Ages. It has never been done in the world before, and
it is extended to the Philippines and we all feel it very keenly.
now,
Sir WILLIAM LYNE: Did not they seize one vessel on one occasion?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You might require Imperial legislation for that. I should not like to express an opinion,
Sir WILFRID LAURIER : All this is new to you, I am sure.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER: It shows the necessity of giving it more attention and more study. I am not prepared myself to say what should be done, but it is a new condition of things which has developed, and which ought to be looked into, because it is interfering with us very seriously; and with all due respect to the Americans, for whom we have a great admiration and with whom we are very friendly, they are intensely selfish in their
Thirteenth Day.
8 May 1907.
COASTWISE TRADE.
(Sir Joseph Ward.)