THE AMERICAN NAVIGATION LAWS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10757, 10 September 1900, Page 4

THE AMERICAN NAVIGATION LAWS.

Wβ are glad to see that the Premier of New South Wales is moving in the matter of united representations being sent to the Imperial Government from t&ese colonies, urging that an attempt should be mode to obtain from the United States some modification of the navigation 3aws, which at present threaten to kill all Australasian commerce with the United States by way of Honolulu. Our only surprise is that the matter has not been taken up in a vigorous manner at a much earlier dote. As far back as June, 1897, before Hawaii was annexed, the Hon. Dr. Creed, M.L.C., brought .under tie notice of the New South Wales Government the grave injury which would be done to the Australian colonies if the group became American, and the American navigation laws remained in force. Nothing, however, was done either by the New South Wales or any other colonial Government at that time, and apparently public opinion is only now just beginning to be aroused to the very great importance of this question. We have already explained the position, but it may be well to bring it once more under the attention of our readers. Under the coastal navigation laws of the United States, no foreign vessel is permitted to take any cargo at one American port and carry it to another. They were passed: with the object of stopping a practice which, was then followed on the American coast, of British vessels taking a cargo across to a United States part, discharging it there, and loading up with goods for another American port. When Hawaii was annexed by the United States it was foreseen that, in the course of time, that country would probably extend the coastal navigation laws to Hawaii; but it was thought that, at any rate, British and Australasian shipowners would be permitted to carry on, as before, for ten years. However, an Act has now been passed, and has come into force, under which these laws have been extended to Hawaii, and the effect of this is that Austalasian-owned vessels are being squeezed out of the trade between Sydney and San Francisco, because, while they are permitted to take from Australasia to Honolulu, andi vice versa, they cannot cany cargo from Honolulu to San Francistio, and vice versa, and it so happens that this covers the great part of the trade. One or two particularly glaring instance of the prejudicial and exasperating effects of this law on British interests have already been seen. It is a fact that British subjects in Honolulu have been prevented from takimg pasage in British-owned ships to San Fra&cisco, and British vessels are equally prevented from taking. merchandise • manufactured or grown in -British possessions between those ports, it ilwbving been .previously landed at either. Can anything be more unjust—we may even say, more fciumiliafcing? That British passengers should be prohibited by a foreign Power JJroan sailing on a British ship, and should be compelled to remain in Honolulu, until it suite the convenience, of some American ship -owner to take them away, is a piece of tyranny and interference which we are justified in strongly resenting.

Th«r9 is another phase of the question which, as our readers ara aware, affects us in New. Zealand! very closdy. As one result of this law, and in consideration of a large subsidy offered by the American Government, Messrs Spreokels 'have resolved to place a third vessel on the San Francisco mail line, and have squeezed the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand out of the service. The avowed object of the American subsidy is to throttle British trade, and yet New Zealand is coolly asked to contribute a large subsidy to assist the United States Government and Messrs Spreckels in carrying out their amiable design! Furthermore, another object is to provide the United States Government with fast vessels available for use as armed cruisers in time of war, and &M we are asked to contribute largely to the cost. The impudence of such a request almost takes away one's ibreath. There is no doubt it is made in all seriousness, 'however, and we are told the* Mr Spreckels is comkig in person to enforce hia demand. Possibly he may try the same arguments that h« has already found successful in dealing with the American Legislature. We trust, however, that he will find; our New Zealand Parliament madfc of different stuff. We do not think it is quite so disloyal and quite so foolish as to be ready to barter away British : trade, and possibly the security of the colony itself, to a foreign Power. I