CO885-(20-21) — Page 608

19

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

occur―A.

I say that if Australia makes certain laws it is for them to attend to their laws. That is what I think the point of the Board of Trade has been in the original inquiry; they suggested that if other countries make their laws they should attend to them and see that they are carried out. Then, again, that raises another question that does not seem to have been considered at all: Is it the killing of the birds that is objected to or the exportation! If once they are killed what matters what becomes of them!

Q. If a bird is protected in the country in which it lives and it is illegally killed and the export of the bird is prevented surely there is very great diminution in the demand for the bird, and therefore there must be a diminution in the incentive to kill it -A. As to the diminution of the demand, of what part are you speak- ing in this country?

Q. Take the birds of paradise in New Guinea, do you suggest that if the export of birds of paradise from New Guinea were wholly impossible, the possibility of obtaining profit by the slaughter of birds of paradise in New Guinea would be as great as it is now!-A. I do not quite see the point there. If the bird is killed and is smuggled out there will be a market for it somewhere, if not here. elsewhere.

Q. It would make the market for that thing smaller -A. The market will not be smaller; the less the supply of the bird the better the market. If a bird of paradise to-day coming out of New Guinea is worth £1, and you practically stop them coming out (we will say that a law is passed to that effect) that bird will perhaps fetch £20 on the Continent if it is got out. The incentive to smuggle it would be larger.

Q. Do you say that the incentive would be larger to export because it was illegal to export -A. Yes, it would be scarcer.

Q. The bird would be scarcer and the price would be larger A. Yes.

Q. Supposing you not only made it illegal to export so that everybody who did export did it at the risk of fine or possible imprisonment, and supposing you cut off one of the markets to which it is now possible to export such as this market, you make it more valuable to export, but you counteract that tendency by diminishing the number of people capable of pursuing it ?-A. To a very small degree by cutting off this market.

I

Q. What is the value of your trade in feathers coming into this country see in Mr. Downham's book he suggests two millions, of which one million is dealt with by Mr. Alden's Bill-A. Yes.

Q. So that you would cut off one million pounds worth of trade ?-A. No, you divert it.

Yes.

Q. You cut that off from this country-A.

Q. And you gentlemen would be out of competition-A. Yes, we should be on the rates, as they call it.

Q. Unless you proceeded to deal in the other things which would necessarily replace them?-A. Yes; but those birds would be killed just the same.

I come back to the same question: Is it the export of the birds that is objected to or the killing, because as the law stands in India there is no restriction on killing, the birds may be killed and are killed. You simply say You must not export them. What does it matter? Once a bird is killed what becomes of it? Regularise the killing of them; that is the whole point we want to press forward.

Work with us. not against us.

Q. You want to regularise the killing of them--A. Yes.

Q. Let me suggest this to you: Supposing a country takes upon itself to protect a particular bird which exists in it and says that bird is not to be killed: supposing it also says that bird is not to be exported: and supposing we in this country co-operate with them by saying "And if the bird is exported from your country by illegal means-smuggling-we will not admit it." Then you will agree that the protection of that bird in that particular country is as complete as law can make it?—A. No. (Mr. Dunstall): The birds would come just the same but they would not come here. (Mr. Joseph): If there is to be a smuggled export there will be a smuggled export.

Q. Whatever you can do?—A. Whatever we can do will not influence it at all. (Mr. Dunstall): The opposition must be international, not from England merely.

Q Supposing there was an international agreement to prohibit the import of the feathers of a protected bird from the country in which it was protected, would

your Chamber offer any objection to that ?—A. It does not bear the same objection as the present Bill. The present Bill, to our mind, is simply useless; it would take our business away and not save the birds. The bulk of the importation of birds of paradise comes directly to Amsterdam; they will still go to Amsterdam if we stop them coming here, and be distributed all over the Continent from there. They are sent on here because it is a central and well-known market for all birds to come to. How will that save the birds! (Mr. Joseph): Or why should the birds be saved if they are not killed in too large quantities? placed before you as to any species that are really in danger of extermination, or is it Have you had any evidence pretended that the 90 per cent. of the birds on the earth comprised in this Schedule are in danger of extermination! Have you had evidence before you that 95 per cent. of the birds of the earth are in danger of extermination? That is the point in a nutshell, if we are to discuss this Bill at all.

Q. You have to answer that point.--A. No, Sir, I ask the question. Q. You have to answer that point. The supporters of this Bill say that they are: they bring forward this Bill because they allege that whilst we are talking in this room, month by month, owing to the trade in millinery, these birds, or some of them, at different rates, are in danger of becoming extinct: that is the contention.

-A. (Mr. Dunstall): The whole of this list?

It is impossible.

Q. These birds are in danger-the whole of this list.-A.

Q. You must remember, of course, that the danger of becoming extinct does not necessarily mean that they will all or any appreciable part of them become extinct this year or next year, but that there is necessity to stop the destruction for exporta- tion (that is the contention---I am not endorsing it) if we can of the birds in this Schedule. You gentlemen say that is not the case.-A. would like to deal with the question of humming-birds. The importations into this We do. (Mr. Joseph): I country last year were between 30,000 and 40,000. Now consider the continent

of South America, where the humming-birds come from, and think whether 30,000 or 40,000 birds could possibly affect the species! Talk of 30,000 or 40,000 sparrows being killed in England, and you have not anything like the proportion.

Q. Of course, Mr.. Joseph, you will appreciate the fact that I am not an expert in these matters and therefore I am relying upon you, but there are any number of species of humming-birds, are there not--A. Yes.

Q. And some of those species are far rarer than others?-A. Probably. Q. There are birds in this country-sparrows it is true would not be affected, unfortunately, by the destruction of 30,000 or 40,000--but there are species in this country that would be absolutely wiped out by 30,000 or 40,000 being killed. A. Exactly.

Q. It is suggested that certain humming birds are becoming very nearly extinct.-A. So that you would prevent every humming-hird being killed, or any humming-bird being used: to protect one species you want to spoil, or to stop the trade in the whole species.

Q. May I put it to you, first of all, that it may be possible that although the number of humming-birds was not decreasing, that although the import of humming. birds into this country showed no sign of decreasing, there were certain species of humming-birds that were decreasing.-A. It is possible.

Q. There might be a man who regarded the continued existence of humming- birds as so desirable that he would be quite willing to stop, if he could, the destruc- tion of all humming-birds in order to save the lives of those humming-birds which might disappear if you continued to destroy them.-A. Yes, there might be a man. Q. The difficulty of laying down the species, according to the supporters of this Bill. is that that would necessitate a trained naturalist.-A. Anyhow it must necessitate trained naturalists to deal with the subject.

Q. But it is easier to know a humming-bird when you see it than to know the different kinds?-A. (Mr. Dunstall): If I might be allowed to say a word about that, the only evidence the Lords Committee had about humming-birds was some evidence with regard to Trinidad. Now, we never had but a few humming-birds from Trinidad; there never were but a few species there, and we believe that in the course of time some of these species may have become extinct; but we do not get hum- ming-birds in quantities, and never did, from Trinidad. The bulk of the humming- birds come from Colombia, where they are very plentiful now: if they were wanted we could have large supplies from Colombia. Although they are worth almost nothing they still come in fair quantities. That is really the source of supply for humming. birds, not Trinidad, and there never were many in Trinidad.

19148

C2

20