COASTWISE TRADE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13484, 10 May 1907, Page 5

COASTWISE TRADE.

MOTION BY MR. DEAKIN. : OPPOSED BY HOME GOVERN- . . MENT. . EFFECTS OF TRANSPORT RESTRICTIONS. (Received May 9, 10.59 p.m.) ' : London. May 9. Mr. Deakin moved the reaffirmation of the resolution adopted on Mr. Seddon's motion at the 1902 Conference relative to the desirability of taking steps to promote Imperial trade in British ships, also the desirability ■; of refusing the privileges of coastwise trade to unreciprocating foreign countries. He instanced the injurious effect of the Russian and American extended coastwise regulations, and thought it was desirable to ascertain the legal position and what were the practical advantages or disadvantages of taking action in regard to coastwise trade. Mr. George said he considered the resolution unnecessary, as.it attacked the decisions of the Navigation Conference. So far as it affected British shipping he complained that the great liners would be subjected to heavy losses owing to the structural alterations necessary and the wages to be paid if forced to conform to the standards enforced in the Australian coastal trade. The Australian conditions even applied where .ocean liners picked up two passengers at an Australian port for conveyance to another port. Such a provision would 'do much to hamper the carrying trade to Australia, and he thought Australia ought to give the Motherland equality of treatment before discussing preference. Mr. : Deakin's resolution might seem advantageous, but if examined it would be found to involve great difficulties. Its", object was either to exclude foreign ships from Great Britain's coasting or inter-Imperial : : trade or to put pressure on foreign Governments to admit British : ships to a corresponding trade in their dominions. He thought a restriction in the traders' choice of transport facilities would probably raise the cost of carriage, thus proving a disability; also a positive advantage would be given to trade between the Empire and foreign countries as compared with the trade within the various portions of the Empire, if goods could only travel direct within the Empire in British ships while goods from foreign countries would have the choice of either British or foreign ships.

Neither Norway nor Germany excluded British ships from their coasting or inter-Imperial; trade, yet they supplied the bulk of the foreign shipping engaged in the inter-Imperial trade..'■■'- The only vessels that would be excluded under the resolution would be Russian and those of the United States, whose trade was .so small that the proposal would confer little practical benefit. If the principle were extended there would be danger of reprisals on British shipping, which was half of* that of the world. Foreign ships if excluded would compete then more keenly in the foreign trade still open to them, and this largely exceeded the colonial trade. So far as the United Kingdom was concerned the interests of British shipping were not prejudiced by the very small amount of foreign shipping entering the United Kingdom's coasting trade.

Mr. Deakin replied that the proposals were those of the Australian Navigation Commission, not of the Governments, whose policy was still undecided. He also said the conditions objected to were intended to raise the shipping standard in conformity with Australian opinion.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier bitterly complained that colonies with Pacific Ocean interests were adversely affected by the very direct and serious manner in which the United States had extended the coasting trade restriction to embrace trade with Honolulu and the Philippines. Though Canada had offered reciprocal connection with the coasting trade the United States had refused the offer. ; ' '".'. ' '"- '' '

Sir Joseph Ward strongly complained of Honolulu's being regarded as an American coastal port, and said it had created an extraordinary position very injurious to New Zealand's trade. He urged Great Britain to adopt a system similar to that of America regarding the extension of coastwise trade unless reciprocity were granted. Mr. Lloyd George refused to entertain the idea of retaliation, and ultimately the resolution of 1902 was reaffirmed unanimously, except that Great Britain dissented when the representatives of the colonies declined to limit the inquiry to the position in regard to intercolonial trade. ' The resolution of 1902 was to the effect that the navigation laws and the shipping laws shall be re-examined-in the direction of excluding from inter-Imperial coasting trade the ships of those countries confining the corresponding trade to their own subjects. . . "PREFERENTIAL TRADER SIR JOSEPH WARD'S ATTITUDE. Sydney, May 9. The Daily Telegraph, commenting on the fiscal debate at the Imperial Conference, says that STr Joseph Ward is a, preferentialist, and his colony is much more pronounced than is the Commonwealth on that question, but he is less dreamy and more a man of affairs than Mr. Deakin, and while he heartily supported the preferential proposal, he refrained from scolding Great Britain for daring to disgrace New Zealand by refusing reciprocity, and submitted other proposals which are of a ■ more sensible and acceptable nature. He knew very well that until there is a change in the British mind preferentialism is impossible, and he therefore invited co-operation on proposals which do not necessarily conflict with British policy.