A.—sa

170

APPENDICES.

In the interests of British shipping there should be : — (1) Uniformity of Shipping Law throughout the Empire, including a uniform standard of efficiency, or (2) If any local differences exist, reciprocity in accepting compliance with the legal standard in all other parts. It is obvious that British shipowners cannot carry on their business, or can only carry it on under grave disabilities, if they have to comply with different and possibly conflicting requirements in every part of the Empire, and to pass in every British Possession surveys in order to establish their cempliane_e. The position, even for liners regularly trading on a route between two parts of the Empire, would, at best, be harassing, whilst for fast passenger steamers sailing on fixed dates, which leave no margin of unemployed time, it would be impossible; except at the prohibitive cost of running additional steamers. Liners constitute but a small proportion of British shipping. The larger proportion has no fixed route. Such ships on leaving the country of their register have frequently no programme beyond the first stage. Their owners cannot, therefore, provide for compliance with divergent standards when they are ignorant of the ports which I heir ships will visit. Vessels engaged in the general carrying; trade of the World, must of necessity be prepared, if they are to be worked to the best advantage, to accept employment wherever offered. This ability to go anywhere and to accept all employment offering has, in the opinion of the liiitish shipowners, I n one of the most important factors in building up the British mercantile marine, and, by avoiding voyages in ballast, cheapening the cost of sea carriage. A nation requiring the vessels using its ports to conform to special and unusual standards will of necessity deprive itself in great measure of the services of this very important class of shipping. A vessel which has been built, equipped, manned, and provisioned in accordance with the .requirements of the laws of its own flag must, as a matter of business, follow, at otherwise equal rates, the trade open to it as it is, rather than enter on employment which will impose the expense and delay incident to the adoption of other standards. The special standards required may differ only in minor points of detail, but even then the difference introduces an element of uncertainty which is most prejudicial to business interests. As yet the separate legislation is confined to New Zealand and the Commonwealth of Australia, but what they can do to-day South Africa and Canada may do to-morrow, establishing divers standards which must act as toll bars to the Rritish mercantile marine, and as a bounty to the foreigner to the extent that the same disabilities cannot be imposed upon him. If this is injurious to British shipping, it will be equally injurious to the trade of the Empire; intercourse cannot be cheap unless it is also free. It is having regard to these considerations that the British shipowners maintain that it is of the utmost importance to the trade of the Empire that the rules and regulations imposed on shipping should not only be reasonable in themselves but applicable to the whole of the Empire. The requirements in Parts 11., IV., and V. of the Act differ, or may differ, most materially from the Imperial requirements, and, though compliance- with local survey may be unnecessary or impossible, no exemptions are granted, except in the ease of certain foreign ships. The provision that all steamers shall, it required, be divided by transverse watertight partitions, as prescribed, might have the effect at any time of rendering it impossible for British ships of the highest class to qualify as seaworthy. As a matter of business, it would be impossible for ships, at all events, liners, to incur, whilst on a voyage, the expense and delay incidental to a survey. It would be equally impossible, from a business point of view, for ships to comply during a part only of their voyage *ith the special rules which are or may be set up

with regard to life-saving appliances, manning provisions, accommodation, lights, sailing rules, &c. Assuming that the Australian and Imperial conditions are assimilated, or that reciprocity as to standards is secured, there would still remain the condition as to wages, imposed by Part VII. of the Bill upon all ships engaging in coastal trade. It would appear from the Report of the Royal Commission that there is diversity of opinion in the Commonwealth as to the expediency of imposing any special Australian conditions on British oversea ships, taking passengers or cargo between their Australian pi.rts of call, and it is submitted, for the reasons so ably summarized in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, that in the interests of both the Commonwealth and of the Empire, the wages obligation should not be imposed upon vessels which engage only incidentally in the trade. The competition of such ships is not severe, as is evidenced by the flourishing condition of the coastal companies. If rates of wages and cost of upkeep are higher lor the coastal boats, the scale of earnings is at least proportionately high. Further, in the case of oversea ships, the service of only a small proportion of the ship's complement can [airly be attributable to the coastal traffic ; and, if the object is to equalise conditions, it is clearly overstepped by an obligation placing on the oversea steamer to pay coastal wages to the whole of the crew. Apart from all considerations of sentiment, it is more than doubtful whether it would be advantageous to Australia to pursue a policy, which, to the extent that it compels oversea ships to abandon all participation in coastal traffic, must result in higher charges for oversea traffic. The British shipowners believe that it is neither just nor expedient to restrict by positive enactment the liberty of the shipowner, on the one hand, and of the shipper or the consignee, on the other, to contract in any manner they please. It is not possible for any country to establish the conditions under which alone it will engage in trade with the rest of the world. It can enforce such conditions in its own courts, but it is powerless to control effectively the contracts in relation to such trade made in foreign countries, or to control the manner in which such contracts will be construed and enforced by the courts of those countries. Any legislative interference with international trade contracts must therefore of necessity be of a limited character and uncertain in its application. To introduce into oversea trade uncertainties may benefit the underwriters and the lawyers, but it cannot in the long run benefit the cargo owners or the shipowners. It would be manifestly unjust to make the shipowner in all circumstances responsible for the goods entrusted to his charge. For instance, the shipowner cannot, in reason, be held responsible fur loss resulting from the perils of the seas; and therefore, whatever reasonable conditions are imposed, it will still be necessary for the owner of the cargo to insure his property. It has been proved by experience that insurance against the risks excepted in the ordinary forms of charter parties and bills of lading, can be more cheaply effected by the shipper with the underwriter direct than by forcing the liability upon the shipowner, or by leaving in a stale of uncertainty the questions as to where the liability, in fact, rests. Many attempts have been made to frame a uniform bill of lading for use in all countries, but without success, as it has been found impossible to provide in any one document for the varying requirements of all trades. The principle that the interests of 'nternational trade are best served by leaving the interested parties complete fn.dom to arrange, as they see fit, the conditions of all shipping contracts is now accepted by the merchants and shipowners of almost all nations. The United States of America has interfered with this freedom but in doing so, has only avoided difficulty by adopting, in the Harter Act, the standard conditions which had previously been agreed between the representatives of the merchants Bad of the shipowners. So far, those standard conditions have not interfered with the conduct of the oversea trade of the United States, but from their adoption the merchants have obtained no relief either in freights or in insurance premiums.