SHIPPING AND EMPIRE TRADE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 32, 7 February 1914, Page 4

SHIPPING AND EMPIRE TRADE

Tariff preferences granted by the Dominions to Great Britain are, says Mr. Thomas Mackenzie, in some cases nullified by shipping subsidies granted by foreign Governments to Britain's trade competitors. Our High Commissioner, however, did not tell his hearers — he was speaking before the AngloSaxon Civb — the worst feature of the shipping question : the differential freights levied against Britain, nob by foreign, but by British shipping companies. When the Dominions Royal Commission was in Dunedin it heard some remarkable evidence oti this subject. One merchant in&tanced ani importation of bottles, some of which came from London and some from Hamburg, but the bottles were all of the same kind and came in the same steamer. Yet the freight on the London bottles was 30s per ton, on the Hamburg article 23s 6d. Another witness also quoted a case of London and Hamburg goods arriving by • the same ship, and said the freight from Hamburg was 29s 6d per ton measurement, while the freight from London wa-s 37s 6d. This, he added, was not an exceptional instance; it was a current practice. The object of the low rates, he suggested, was to keep out German steamer competition ; but if it keeps German ships out of that particular running, it certainly helps to put German goods into the New Zealand market, despite the preference extended to British-made. Germany now sends, according to the evidence, a large quantity of goods tha.t would come from British firms if there was no difference in freights). This complaint is, in the judgment of the Dominions lloyal Commissioners, well founded. Their verdict is that "there exists freight discrimination against Bri-< tish shippers, whereby certain British shipowners transport goods from the Continent to New Zealand at lower rates than from British ports to New Zealand. Tins is thoroughly uhb&Ub-

factory, and runs directly counter to the patriotic and Imperial intentions of the New Zealand Legislature and acts detrimentally to British trade." Further, the Commission found that "no adequate defence for such action could bo made, though repeated opportunities were given foi' explanation." Another possible danger to interimperial preference is the lowering of the United States tariff wall. If, by" this reduction, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand secure enlarged and permanent markets in the States, a new system of trade will grow up that may compete with the inter-imperial interchange. The subject recently received the attention of the Washington cor« respondent of The Times. In brief, the position is that, economically, one country cannot send goods to another without an exchange. Goods must, in the main, be paid for in goods. In exchange for our food, we must bring back shiploads of American manufactures. To an extent we take these now, but we have made war on them through the British preference tarilf; and if we greatly increased our food exports to the States, it would be more and more incumbent on us to take their manufactures in return. So long as they shut out our foodstuffs and raw materials, we Were free to retaliate against them tluough the preference j but if they become a large consumer of our goods they will have something to bargain with, and we will not be so ready to penalise an important customer. " There are," remarks the Washington correspondent of The Times, "American observers bold enough to prophesy that, if things work out as they expect, the time may come when Australasian loyalty to Imperial preference may be tested as severely ns was Canadian loyalty in 1911." Thus the breaches made in the American tariff and the Panama Isthmus, by setting up a. new era of trade with America, may become epoch-making events in the whole Eng-lish-speaking world, with contingent effects as yet unrealised or even unsuspected.