Page image
Page image

A.—s.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : Have you attempted to legislate at all ? Sir WILFRID LAURIER : What legislation can we do ? We can only say :" We will do the same thing to you." We have offered again and again to reciprocate with the United States in the exchange of coastwise trade. We have a large coasting trade between Canada and the United States on the lakes. It would be to their advantage and our advantage to have coasting trade, because there is so much shipping on these lakes, and it is getting more and more voluminous every year, as everyone knows. It is a serious impediment on our shipping, but the United States have absolutely refused. So far as that goes they are within their rights, but when they go beyond their natural rights, and apply those to a country like Honolulu and to the Philippines also as part of the coast of the United States, although 1,000 miles away, that is most unfair treatment. At all events, it seems to me an abuse of the powers of legislation, and therefore the question is one of great interest to us. I can see the force of what you now tell us. It would expose us to retaliation and hurt our shipping, so the question is one that requires very serious consideration. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : But we cannot hit them. That is our trouble. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : But we can, and we do not want to, or we would and perhaps we cannot. That is the difference. This resolution does not go very far. It does not bind you to anything. It simply asks for further consideration on the subject, and I think it worth consideration. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : As far as the Mother Country is concerned, we cannot possibly object to what Sir Wilfrid Laurier sugests now, if the resolution is to relate only to the Colonies. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : I see the force of your objection, and you see the force of ours. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE : I agree; if I were a Canadian I would hit them if I could. Sir WILFRID LAURIER : We intend to, if we can. We ask you not to bind yourself to the resolution, but simply to inquire into the question. The question has never been properly looked into, but only superficially. It rests on international as well as other law, and I simply ask that the resolution be re-affirmed for further inquiry and nothing else. I would not ask the Conference to pledge itself to any definite action, but I think we are right in asking for the resolution to be re-affirmed for the purpose of going deeper into the subject. The conflict of interests between the British interest and that of the Dependencies on the Pacific Ocean is one which ought to be looked into, and I think under such circumstances the resolution ought to be re-affirmed. Sir JOSEPH WARD : It would be just as reasonable if the British Government were to lay it down as a principle that Mauritius was to be looked upon as part of the coast of England, as what America has been doing to us and to England as well in the matter of Honolulu. We cannot trade between New Zealand and .San Francisco with our steamers for the reason that the American law extending to Honolulu is, that not a passenger on that island can be shipped by one of our steamers, and not a ton of cargo. Yet

Thirteenth Day. 8 May 1907.

coastwisi Trauk.

461

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert