THE NEW ZEALAND DIRECT TRADE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 147, 22 June 1906, Page 2

THE NEW ZEALAND DIRECT TRADE.

ALLEGED PREFERENCE FOR BRISTOL. THE ATTRACTION OF FREE STORAGE. (rHOM OTJB OWN CORRESPONDENT.) LONDON, 11th May. The contept between Barry and Cardiff on the one hand, and Bristol on the other, to secure tne New Zealand direct trade still goes on. Private traders of Cardiff and Barry have taken up the matter of Bristol's alleged unfair preference to the New Zealand direct trade — namely, by giving a month's free cold storage — • and have refused to accept delivery of frozen meat landed by the last direct steamers ab Avonmouth when it was con» signed to -Barry. The shipowners' contention is that under their bill of lading they can land the produce at Avonmouth, but the Cardiff importers insist) that tho produce shall be landed at Barry, or that the, cost of railage shall be made good. Last Monday the Bristol Corporation Bill was considered by a House of Commons Select Committee. This was an omnibus Bill, the principal opposed part being one' which is intended to enable the corporation, as the owners of the docks, to make remission of the dues on vessels discharging part cargoes on vessels bringing an aggregate amount of tonnage each year, and on vessels trading generally at tfhe port. ' The Cardiff Railway Company and the Barry Railway Company oppose this proposal. Mr. Balfour Browne, who represented the promoters of the Bill, said that what was asked by the promoters had been granted by Parliament to otlher dock companies. There was no opposition to the proposal from any shipowners or from the docks of Penarth or Newport, which are the nearest to Bristol, but objection was raised by^ the Cardiff and Barry Companies, wfio apparently desired to put a spoke in the wheels of Bristol. At the same time the Cardiff Company had even larger powers in regard to dealing with the ships which went to tiheir port. Cardiff alleged that the alterations BUggested would unduly and unfairly compete with them, but such a contention was ungracious on the part of those who themselves had got) even larger powers. The Barry Company complained that the Bill would give Bristol Tate-aided, and therefore unfair, competition with Barry, which conduoted its business" on strictly commercial principle^. As a matter of fact the object of Bristol was to avoid taking anything from the rates, and the best metihod of doing that waa not to keep vessels away, but to encourage them to come to the docks. Mr. Davies, M.P., Chairman of tihe Docks Committee, stated, in crossexamination by Mr. Honoratus Lloyd (for the Cardiff Railway Company), that Bristol had at present the benefit of 'the general law like the other porta, but they could not afford ,to make a general reduction. Mr. Lloyd : And therefore you seek special provisions which would enable you fo offer special benefits to induce special ships to come to your port? — Yee. Now, -is • not that , exactly what the general Idvr- '• prevents?— -We have no power to do it. We want that) power. Mr. Harvey, assistant general manager of the docks,' explained the manner in which the increase in the size of steamers had led to a great ohange in ooean-going traffic and' tfhe dock accommodation 1 necessary for' it. The effect of that had been that such large steamers had great difficulty in getting a full cargo for one port, and the consequence was tlhat a steamer coming through Bristol frequently brought only a part cargo. Many applications hitd been made to the corporation for the reduction in tihe dock dues payable on such steamers, and with their present statutory powers they had been compelled to refuse. In consequence of that inelasticity in their dues Bristol had lost much traffic. The witness, continuing, said they had actually lost lines of steamers because they had been unable to make the arrangements now proposed. The presentl general law waa made hi 1847, when steamers we^re small and conditions entirely different. Mr. Lloyd (for the Cardiff Railway Company) : Is it a fact that Cardiff does as much trade in frozen meat as you do? — They may do as much in frozen meat as we are doing at present. The- general law applies to Bristol as to, other ports? — Bnt other ports seem to be more elastic than Bristol in regard to the charging of dues. Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw (for the Barry Railway Company), witness said that with regard to the New Zealand shipping business, when any such rebate was made as was 'made in that case, it should, according to the terms of the Act, be advertised. He admitted, however, that that had not been done. Mr. Freeman, on behalf of the Barry Railway Company, submitted that no case had been shown to the committee where suecial powers had ever been given to the owners of one dock undertaking where tfoey would, if given, inflict a hardship on another dock undertaking in direct competition and if that dockjmdertaking objected to those powers* being granted. Barry and Cardiff were competitive dpcko, and had in recent) years spent enormous sums on the very teade in regard to which competition with Bristol would be most keen — cold storage and other things. In the result the Barry and Cardiff objections were overruled, and the Bristol Bill was allowed, so that that port can grant free storage.

■

I