"GOLDEN RULE."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 236, 5 October 1936, Page 8

"GOLDEN RULE."

SHIPPING PROBLEM. QUESTION OF SUBSIDIES. HELPING BRITISH VESSELS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Wlion tlio Congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire commenced its business sessions to-day, the first subject was subsidies to shipping. Several resolutions were embodied in one, to the effect that, while reaffirming it adherence to the principle of free, unrestricted and unsubsidised ocean transport services, the Congress recommends to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Dominions that trade facilities to foreign shipping trading between Empire ports should only be granted to the shipping of those countries giving similar facilities to Empire shipping, and that they should, whether by subsidy or otherwise, afford such assistance as to enable the British mercantile marine to remain as in the past — one of the greatest bulwarks of the Empire, whether in peace or war. The mover was Mr. Spencer Watts, of Sydney, who particularly emphasised that what they wanted to get was treatment similar to that meted out to others —ill other words the application of the "golden rule." They would prefer to have no discrimination against any flag provided there was none against them. The seconder was Mr. A. M. Seaman, of Auckland, who dealt particularly with the disabilities being suffered by British shipping in the Pacific through America's subsidies and between-ports restrictions to her own shipping and constructional loans. The resolution was supported by Australian and New Zealand delegates. Sir T. Wilford put forth a suggestion that Britain, the world's biggest purchaser, should use her purchasing power to secure equalit-" to shipping. She had the power to do so, if she had the will, he said. Sir Thomas then moved a resolution urging all the Governments concerned to take early action, in the interests of British trade in the Pacific,, to preserve this link in the All-Red shipping route. Mr. A. G. Lunn (Auckland) seconded. Danger of Retaliation. Mr. Jones (Cardiff, Swansea and South Wales) expressed the wish that the problem was as simple as the supporters of the resolution made it appear. He made the point that there was a grave danger ,by retaliation in the Pacific. They might drivo the American nation into competition with sliip owners in other parts of the world. They had not been as pure in Britain as they had been led to believe. Britain had been lending money cheaply abroad to build ships that were not required and. that had brought its own Nemesis in the end. What they should aim at was increased trade among British people.

Mr. Gibson (Leeds) strongly opposed this view. He thought Mr. Jones had overlooked their reaffirmation in the resolution of the freedom in ocean transport. Mr. Gibson agreed with Sir Thomas Wflford that British shipping in the Pacific must he maintained.

Mr. J. M. Paxton (Sydney) gave the history of the Vancouver and San Francisco services, and made the point that the main trouble was the suitability of the competing ships for the passenger trade. He hoped the resolution would bo carried unanimously and just as it was worded. Mr. A. Wiggles-worth (London) suggested that a conference should be held fn London. During the discussion Sir Montague Burton said that if there were a resolution for a London conference, as suggested by Mr. A. Wigglesworth, he would support it. ' Mr. Emlvn Jones (Cardiff) moved an amendment that the whole question of British shipping in the Pacific should be deferred until a' conference had been arranged between the countries concerned, including the United States. Objection was raised to the proposal, it being stated that there was 110 saying where this would lead to, and * the amendment was lostThe resolution was then carried with one dissentient.