1202 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V 
zoastal trade, then the arm of the New Zealand law was 
long enough to reach them. 
It should be noted that at the Merchant Shipping Confer- 
ance of 1907 no stress was laid upon this judgement by the 
Prime Minister of New Zealand, and the judgement has not 
passed without criticism. The Chief Justice has, however, 
in a recent case which is referred to below, re-asserted his 
sonviction of the soundness of the judgement. 
It will be observed that in that case the actual result of 
the judgement was to enforce New Zealand conditions only 
apon New Zealand registered vessels. But in a subsequent 
case the remark of the Chief Justice as to the powers of New 
Zealand with regard to the coastal trade was carried into 
effect with the result of conflict between an award of the 
High Court of the Commonwealth of Australia and the law 
of New Zealand. This case was that of Huddart, Parker 
wnd Company Proprietary (Limited) v. Nixon! 
In that case the plaintiff was a proprietary company incor- 
porated under the State of Victoria and owning steamships 
which were registered in Melbourne, although the company 
had agents and offices in New Zealand. These steamships 
traded with New Zealand and were engaged in the coastal 
trade. The seamen and officers were engaged on articles 
signed in Melbourne or in Sydney, which were for six months 
and fixed the wages of the persons employed. The wages 
were paid by monthly advances at Melbourne or Sydney, 
according to the place of engagement. The wages in question 
were in some cases equal to or greater than the current rate 
of wages payable in New Zealand, but were in some cases less 
than the current rate of wages. The wages were fixed by 
an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and 
Arbitration, which was constituted by virtue of the Common- 
wealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904. 
The Marine Department of the New Zealand Government 
claimed that while the ships were in New Zealand ports and 
while they were trading between two New Zealand ports, they 
were subject to the provisions of s. 75 of the Shipping and 
"29 N. Z. L. R. 657; see Keith, Journ. Soc. Comp. Leg., xi. 294-9.