Presumed advantage of the Panama route. branch of trade on the American coast had been greatly overrated. In the first place, it was obvious that every year would diminish its importance if the surmise was correct that the bulk of the trade between the two sea-boards of the North American continent would shortly be carried across the Isthmus of Panama, and would thus, be placed at the disposal of British ships.[1]
Question discussed. Whatever opinion may be formed concerning the validity of this comparison, the Board of Trade assured the Shipowners that the Queen's Government had held on this question, that, although the inter-*Oceanic trade of the United States might, in a strictly technical sense, be properly defined as a Coasting trade,[2] yet, on the broad ground of international equity, it should rather be regarded as analogous to the trade between the United Kingdom and her distant dependencies, and that British ships were, therefore, fairly entitled to participate in the former, in return for the complete assimilation of the United States to the British flag in the latter field of profitable employment.
It should, however, be remarked that, with reference to this question, the reservation of the coasting trade to national vessels does not appear to apply to
- ↑ I really do not see it in that light. British ships would, indeed, have a shorter voyage from England to California, but they would still be precluded from going from New York to California viâ the Canal or passage at the Isthmus. The restriction would continue and would prove even more vexatious, as might be shown in a variety of ways.
- ↑ I deny this altogether. I cannot admit that a ship taking a cargo from Cronstadt to Odessa, thus making almost the circumnavigation of Europe, could be justly deemed to be making a Coasting voyage, however much Russian municipal law might declare it to be so.
