PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
16
Q. We are not limited by our instructions to the Colonies at all. I gather that you are familiar with the provisions of Lord Avebury's Bill ?—--A. Yes.
Q. And I gather that the root objection, as Mr. Town has told us, to the Bill is that you believe that the passage of it into law would drive abroad a trade which employs a large number of people in this country?-A. No, that is not the root objection; the root objection is that we do not see any reason to believe that there is a danger of the extermination of any species, and we have had no evidence, we see no evidence that has been placed before any of the Committees that have sat so far to prove the assertion that there is any what you might call wholesale destruction, because all those phrases are relative. You might say that there is a wholesale destruction of pheasants in England because many hundreds of thousands are killed, but we do not see anything that proves the danger of extermination or points in any way to the extermination of species. As the Bill was introduced
we understand with the idea to prevent extermination, that is the root of our objection to it.
Q. Let us take the birds that are mentioned in the Schedule; your experience in the trade is that there is no diminution in the supply of birds of paradise coming to this country-A. Practically none.
Q. Is there any increase in price which would lead you to suppose that the difficulty in collecting such as coine is getting greater!-A. No, any increased price depends entirely on fashion.
Q. The next are the humming birds?-A. They are exactly in the same position.
Q. In fact, you are here to state that there is no sign of any growing scarcity of the birds mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill?-A. Yes, and we can prove it.
Q. That is the opinion of the section and of all you gentlemen ?-A. Yes. Q. That is a most valuable contention or piece of evidence: what proof do you suggest?-A. We will take the proof, if you like, first as to birds of paradise. If you take the exportations, we will say from New Guinea and the islands thereabout, there has been no diminution in the exportations for many years. It was said before the Committee of the House of Lords that if those exportations continued for three years the bird of paradise would be exterminated. Now, they have continued for three years unabated, and does anybody say to-day that the birds of paradise are any less numerous than they were then?
Q. In Mr. Downham's book in the year 1908-I am looking at Appendix No. 3- ---A. I would like Mr. Downham to explain his own figures.
Q. I am just to ask this one question, because it is relevant to this: In the year 1908, from Appendix No. 3, there is a diminution of the importation of egret feathers from Venezuela from £32,000, I take it, to £6,201, and you add a note at the bottom, Mr. Downham, " £25,000 diverted to Continental ports this year merely because the Prohibition Bill had passed the House of Lords." You have got evidence
to convince you that that drop from £32,000 to £6,201 was due to an increase in the import to other countries; it was not merely a decrease of import into this country?- - A. (Mr. Downham): I do not quite follow that.
Q. The table as it stands, so far as I understand it, does not prove your point. Supposing the import of egret feathers dropped from £32,000 to £6,201 and that nothing else happened, that might mean merely that fewer egret feathers were exported from Venezuela ?—Yes.
Q. But your contention is that the £25,000 by which the £6,000 is less than £32,000 went somewhere else!—A.
Yes.
What evidence is there of that?-A. The evidence of the figures from Venezuela itself from the Trade Returns.
Q. You have looked at the figures of export from Venezuela and you find that there is no diminution there, and therefore you are led to that conclusion?—A. I am not led to suppose that; I know it.
Q. You are led to conclude that A. No, I know it.
Q. You know that the feathers left Venezuela and did not come here?— A. Yes.
Q. And therefore they must have gone somewhere else?—A. absolutely.
Yes, that I know
Q. I only wanted quite to understand this table and that information is not on the table. Please go on, Mr. Joseph.-A. (Mr. Joseph): We were on the question of birds of paradise for the moment, and I had just explained to you that the
17
evidence offered to the Lords Committee was absolutely valueless on that point, and I think I proved my point.
Q. What method do you pursue? Are feathers exported to you from New Guinea, let us say, birds of paradise feathers, or have you your own collectors out there, each of you gentlemen in the trade —A. No.
Q. They come over here for sale from some merchants over there -A.
And then you bid for them in the market here?- A. Yes.
Q.
Yes.
I want to put to you another suggestion that has been made to us by some of the witnesses for dealing with this general question of the alleged destruction of certain species and certain kinds of birds. The Commonwealth of Australia has issued a Proclamation under which it forbids the import into Australia of the skins of any birds unless it can be proved by the importer of those birds that they come from a country in which they are not protected; that is to say, let us suppose that the Commonwealth of Australia itself were to draw up a schedule of protected birds and that we had similar legislation in this country, in order to import into this country the skin of a bird of that species the importer would have to prove that it did not come from the Commonwealth of Australia.-- A I follow that, Sir.
Q. That really means that if a country chooses to protect some of its own property and to make the export of that protected property illegal we would hack them up in this country by inaking the import of illegally obtained goods illegal in this country.-A. It is proposed that that should be a clause in a certain law?
Q. An Act of Parliament, let us say.-A. How would that affect goods that were, we will say, smuggled out of a certain country where they were protected and sent to some foreign port that would receive them and then shipped to England, where the importer would know nothing about their origin?
Q. With a bogus certificate of origin, so that whereas in fact the bird of paradise skins came from New Guinea it would be alleged that they came from California —A. Not necessarily birds of paradise, but take birds that inhabit the whole world practically, in one country the export might be forbidden but in all the other countries it might be allowed; how would a question like that be dealt with
Q. It would be possible, I admit, with such a bird for a man to attempt to defraud and possibly to succeed in defrauding the Customs. I merely ask you-in your opinion it would be a very easy thing to do that !—A. that sort would be absolutely unworkable; but the whole point really comes back I should say a law of to the original idea of the Chamber of Commerce, that they see no birds that require protection practically, and if there are any birds that are pointed out to the Chamber of Commerce to the trade-and I speak for the trade not only in England but on the Continent that really require protection, the trade is quite willing to enter into the spirit of protection and to help in any way to protect these birds. I am speaking now practically for the feather trade of the world, not only the London feather trade, but we are in close agreement with the merchants and importers of France and Germany on this question. You see, even now, as we stand, we have nothing before us to answer. If you tell us what birds are in danger of extermination-because that is the basis of the Bill-extermination-or are alleged to be in danger we will answer you.
Q.This is the situation. Roughly speaking two concrete proposals are before us: one is this published Bill of Lord Avebury's, with a schedule of birds which the promoters of that Bill allege are in danger of being exterminated.—A. Which Bill Q. The Bill we have just been talking about.-A. This is not Lord Avebury's Bill; this is Mr. Alden's.
is that?
It is the same thing.-A. Shall we discuss this schedule of Mr. Alden's! Q. You have just told us that the opinion of your Chamber is that not one single one of these birds in the schedule stands in any need of protection.A. I will not say that; that wants a little qualification; but I come back to my point, that we cannot generalise, and that we must go into details.
Q. All I want from you is--you are prepared with evidence to support your contention that there is no necessity for this legislation because there are no birds that want protecting —A. Yes; and I would like to refer you to Mr. Downham and Mr. Dunstall, who will give you more expert evidence than I can on the different species.
Q. And further, on the question of the particular birds, you are of opinion that the alternative legislation such as the legislation which is now existing in Australia, would be impossible in this country because of the smuggling that would
19188
f་
18