EMPIRE TRADE EVIDENCE BEFORE DOMINIONS' COMMISSION

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 49, 27 February 1913, Page 4

EMPIRE TRADE EVIDENCE BEFORE DOMINIONS' COMMISSION

(tt TELEGRAPH— FRESS ASSOCIATION.) . DUNEDIN, 26th February. The Dominions' Royal Commission continued its sittings to-day. Mr. J. Blair Mason, engineer of the Otago Harbour Board, showed the Commission the condition of the harbour, and told members that, "we can take into the harbour all vessels at present trading to the Dominion ; at the Heads there was a depth Of 37 feet at low water, and vessels drawing 46ft can enter, but at present ' such vessels cannot . proceed up channel; the difficulties inside, however, were such as can be dealt with." Mr. Mason^ said he could not state exactly what it would cost to deepen the channel to Port Chalmers to 40ft, but he estimated it at £50,000. The board had borrowed about £87,000 for works, and paid on an average about 5 per 'cent. The board's endowments included about 660 acres in the city of Dunedin, of which about 290 acres had been reclaimed and absorbed in the city, and these would become very valuable in years to come. The board's income would >be more than sufficient to' pay all interest charges and provide a sinking fund with which to pay off loans. In his opinion the providing of a 48ft channel all the way to Dunedin was prohibitive on the ground of expense. ' Mr. J. W. Henton (of the New Zealand Drug Company) presented a remit* of the Chamber of Commerce on the question of shipping subsidies, and read a memorandum to the following effect : The question of finance is an all-im-portant factor in dealing with this question, and it appears to us that each case of subsidy should be considered on its merits, and dealt with by such" an organisation as the "Empire Development Department," and the cost of any subsidy allocated between the points of the Empire benefiting. It has been brought under the notice of the chamber that freight on goods from Hamburg to New Zealand via London is considerably less than that from London to New Zealand direct. This state of things, appearing to us to be inconsistent, and requiring investigation, a specific case has been furnished covering articles ef import where freight from Hamburg is 29s 6d per ton, and from London direct 40s per ton. The reason of the difference is not obvious, unless German shippers rely on State assistance to reimburse them. There is' also another aspect. On the particular goods referred to there exists a preferential duty of ten per cent., and the difference in favour of the Hamburg shipment represents 174 per cent, of the duty ; it therefore follows that preferential duty is negatived to this extent, and might by further reductions in freight charges be rendered, in a measure, ineffective for the protection of British against foreign manufacturers. Answering questions, Mr. Henton said he did not know how such a state of affairs as variation in freights could be remedied, but he held that it wa9 the duty of the Government to see that the matter was attended to when considering preferential tariff. v The net result of the present system was that our people paid German subsidies. The Hon. J. R. Sinclair asked if it was not a fact that London was treated as the port of origin for goods that really came from the Continent, and in this way treated as British goods, though not really so, and they got the benefit of the preferential tariff. , • . Mr. Henton replied. ' that; W did not know that /the practice obtained to any great extent. The Opawa -brought his firm glass- bottles, some from England and some from .Hamburg ; the "freight on the English bottles was 30a; and on the German bottles 23s od, though both' lots came by the same vessel. ' The shipper made a declaration that the goods Were of British manufacture, and this declaration was accepted by the Customs Department. Goods that were duty free were duty free to all alike. Goods ,must have 25 per cent, of British labour in finishing in order to get preference, the other 75 per cent, of labour might be German ; if 75 per cent, of labour were British iand 25 per cent, of finishing labour German, he did not think such goods would get preferential advantage, but so far as he knew it was not common for goods to be prepared in England and .sent to Germany to finish. • Ml. James Park (Park and Co.) said German goods were as cheap as British, even taking tariff into consideration. His idea was that British ships kept freights low for German goods so that it would not be worth while for the Norddeutscher Line to send vessels direct to New Zealand and so avoid German opposition in shipping^' facilities to ship , German manufactures in British bottoms were giVen to German manufacturers, thus ' avoiding ' German competition in New Zealand waters.