SUEZ AND PANAMA DUES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 246, 18 October 1933, Page 6

SUEZ AND PANAMA DUES.

Sir Arnold Wilson, M.P., speaking in the Economics Section of the British Association on "The Effect of Suez Canal Dues, on Intercontinental Trade," said that at the present exchange rates the dues worked out at 8/3 per net registered ton, as compared with 5/7 levied at Panama —a difference of £750 on a cargo vessel of 5500 toils. From 10 to 14 days' steaming costs might be saved by using the Panama C'anal instead of the •Suez. It was thus clear that the Panama Canal was a powerful instrument in the hands of the President of the United Stales. The lower the dues the easier for United States shipping from the Atlantic coast to compete with British and European shipping in China, Japan and Singapore. The tonnage now carried by the two canals and the number of ships using each canal were almost the same. Fifty-five per cent of 'Suez Canal traffic was under the British flag, and the same percentage using the Panama Canal was under the United States flag. Naturally, the Panama Canal had a very beneficial effect on the United States Far Eastern trade. The high level of Suez Canal dues was a heavy burden on our low-grade raw material, especially as full dues were charged if l a ship had any cargo at all on board. On minerals, on oil. coal, wheat and cotton and jut© it paid shippers rather to 'send ships round the Cape of <*4ood Hope. Suez Canal Company dividends averaged 25 per cent for five years when few European shipping companies were paying 5 per cent on ordinary shares. It was open to question, therefore, whether it was consistent with the interests of British trade in Asia that maritime traffic should be •subject, indefinitely to such a heavy charge. Three-quarters of the world's trade with Asia passed through two artificial waterways, one controlled by the United States Government, the other by a private company. This fact constituted a problem which sooner or later would have to be iacctL i