CO885-(16-18) — Page 714

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

T ། ། ། ། །

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.

(Mr. Deakin.)

"the monopoly of building these ships, and repairing them, our shipowners

E

K

"

<

have a harvest each year which they could obtain nowhere else." The United States are amongst the countries who have emphatically reserved their coastwise trade and given a very wide interpretation to that term. The Secretary of State at that time invited special attention to this part of Mr. Seddon's proposal, at page 72; and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who had evidently given this subject close attention, at page 73, pointed out that 50 years ago the Navigation Laws were repealed, largely at the instance of the Colonies, and perhaps Canada was one of the chief motors in the new departure. The conditions have changed very much since that time. The "Americans have extended their navigation laws, but not only to the coasting trade, but to a class which is not at all used for coasting trade; for instance, they have applied their law on the Pacific Ocean "not only to the coast of the American continent, not only to the coast of the United States from California up to British Columbia, but "they include Honolulu as part of the United States. They have not allowed the privileges to other shipping. They reserve that exclusively "to themselves." He explained the Canadian law, which offers reciprocity in the coasting trade-an offer not then taken advantage of by the United States, nor, I think, since. The representative of the Common- wealth, Sir Edmund Barton, at page 76, said: "Whether it would be possible with the concurrence of the whole of the self-governing portions "of the Empire to make a general navigation law accepting and asserting "the principle, and leaving the application of it to the autonomous action of "the Governments concerned, is a question which may well be considered; " and I think this whole question of the navigation laws is one which may "demand a larger and longer discussion than we have given to it yet." I think that discussion has now been held under the presidency or chairmanship of the President of the Board of Trade.

L

4

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so.

Mr. DEAKIN: Was it the law of Merchant Shipping only, or the Navigation Laws which were under consideration?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think we pretty well covered the whole ground.

Sir JOSEPH WARD: That is so.

Mr. DEAKIN So I understand. This question now comes to us almost by transfer from your Conference.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Was this moved at all at our Conference?

Sir JOSEPH WARD: My impression is that it was not.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The only question we proposed to refer to this Conference was as to the islands of the Pacific, whether they should be included as part of the coastwise trade of Australia.

Sir JOSEPH WARD: At the Navigation Conference we dealt with the power, admitted by everybody, of the Colonies to govern shipping within their own territories. We decided that the inter-communication between an outside place and the Colonies we had no jurisdiction over beyond our own

waters.

9

We decided to go for uniformity in legislation as far as possible, to meet the different requirements of the Empire. The cause of this being referred here, was a desire on our part to try and control ships and shipping in the islands of the Pacifié, making those islands part and parcel of the territories of Australia and New Zealand, and we wanted to arrive at a decision upon it, and found we could not govern the trade on the oceans outside our own territory, and we decided that aspect of it should be transferred to this Conference.

Mr. DEAKIN : Does not that involve a consideration of this resolution of 1902 which we had already set down for consideration by this Conference? That is to say, is not the main point so far as we are concerned, or rather, is not our main object to learn the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom as to the possibility of dealing with the trade between the Mother Country and its Colonies and Possessions as coastwise trade. The islands of the l'acific have a particular interest for New Zealand and the Commonwealth; but, of course, they would come under any application of these general principles to which by resolution attention was called in 1902. I presume the question has been considered since, and was just about to briefly point out the steps by which the Government of the United Kingdom came to agree to this resolution in 1902. The then President of the Board of Trade, at page 134, pointed out that if there was to be a reciprocity arrangement in regard to coastwise trade only three countries would be affected-Russia, the United States, and France-because every other country did practically leave its coastal trade open to British vessels. Russia and the United States are exceptions, and France is a partial exception. Again he said the question might be raised to Russia whether the trade between Great Britain and her Colonies was not in her sense of the term coastal trade, on the plea that she has made traffic between Odessa on the Black Sea and Port Arthur coastal trade. Those were two ports in the same territory, whereas the United States made Honolulu, Hawaii, and Porto Rico all islands in the ocean subject to their coastal trade provisions. Sir Wilfrid Laurier then pointed out that all the resolution did was to call attention to this subject. The resolution was approved. At page 139 it will be found as it appears on the agenda paper for this Conference. There will be found an Appendix No. 18 at page 453-a memorandum by the Board of Trade- which sets out the practice of the different countries there mentioned in regard to their coastwise commerce. I will only call attention to the general principle adopted by Portugal, which first reserved the whole of its trade absolutely as coastwise trade, and then opened its ports to foreign vessels as appeared advisable or in consideration for reciprocal concessions. They started with reserving the whole of the coastal trade, and then commenced to throw open to everybody certain portions of it which they did not wish to reserve, and to make reciprocal arrangements with countries that did reserve their coastwise trade. That seems to be a course which has something to be said in its favour. At page 456, paragraph 20, of this report, there is a state- ment in Annex No. 8, showing the position of coastal trade, which says: "It will be seen that there is no treaty under which the right to share in the coasting trade of all our Colonies and l'ossessions is granted to any foreign country, but a few treaties (mostly with unimportant countries from a maritime point of view) concede this right with respect to our Crown "Colonies and certain self-governing Colonies which have adhered to those treaties." It mentions Greece, Paraguay, and the Argentine. The Board of Trade Memorandum raises the question as to whether there is a distinction between what might be called a foreign shipping trade and coasting trade proper, and then proceeds: "Assuming that any difficulty of this kind is surmounted, the treaty position as regards inter-Empire trade would appear

"

C

C

"

i 19270.

C

Thirteenth Day.

8 May 1907.

COAST WISE TRADE.

(Sir

Joseph Ward.)