SHIPPING COMPETITION

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 82, 3 October 1931, Page 12

SHIPPING COMPETITION

(To the Editor.) Sir, —All those; who understand the significance of tlfe present American shipping policy and who have the interests o£ their country at heart must appreciate the letter over the signature "E.P.T." in your issue of the'26th September.-In the moderation of his remarks he has, however, surely understated the case against the United States policy when he says "Neither I nor any of those who have udvocated restrictive^, measures against the Matson steamers have ever objected Co the United States Government subsidising her mercantile marine. That Government has, o£ course, the right to lielp.its own business concerns to any extent possible, even to take them over and run them." "E.P.T."'directs his attention particularly-to the question of the Matson steamers trading intercolonially. To, my mind the injustice of this Bection o£ the competition' is beyond all argument. It can bo no part of any legitimate national policy for a country to use its heavily subsidised vessels to stamp out the local shipping trade of a foreign country in its own- waters. Especially is that out of place in the present case where the New Zealaud Government enforces wages and conditions of employment on local vessels trading intercolonially which are not enforced on or observed by these same heavily subsidised American ships. But I must go further and dissent from the view expressed by ''E.P.T." that, there is no objection to the United. States Government ■subsidising its mercantile marine to any extent possible. Some measure of subsidy] to mail vessels for speed and regularity is not objectionable, as being a reasonable recompense for olierous conditions: The present American policy, however, is on quite different lines.; It' is designed to place American ships: oh the seas regardless of expense and to displace the ihipping of those very countries! with which America^ hopes to trade. Surely "E.P.T." is too indulgent when he would accept this as' a reasonable sta.te of; affairs.:: ■ Some further insight into the position may be gained by a brief review, ;of some of the phases in the American shipping programme leading up to the present position. In'the first place it was sought to establish that all goods imported into America, should be carried in American vessels.; This is now the law, but owing to pressure by- the foreign governments interested, clauses have been added allowing' importations in vessels of the country of origin of the goods, and also in vessels of nations not maintaining a similar regulation against vessels .'of the United States. ■■ • '■■ ■ ■ {', . \ ■ ■' •,[.., '■'/,>. . By the Jones Bill of 1920 the' American overland railways were not to be allowed to give the usual rebttes in the rates on through ocean passengers or cargo, except when landed by or for: shipment in American vessels, :T6; permit of this, all treaty clauses preventing American discrimination against foreign; vessels were to be denounced. These provisions were actually t passcd, but: the-President refused to denounce the treaties. 'If the Act had become effective it was certain from the 'protests made that shipping would have been diverted to Canadian ports, and their passengers and cdrgo transported over the Canadian railways. ,Then, there is the history of the Panairia Canal dues. Under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. England renounced her; rights under a previous treaty in exchange for an undertaking on the part of the United States that the. Panama Canal would be available on equal terms to^the shipping of all nations. An American Bill was brought forward designed: to nullify' that f agreement by exempting her, own coastwise vessels, This Bill actually got through the American Legislature, .and was .only repealed a couple of years later through the special advocacy of' President Wilson. ; ; , Here we have the strange phenomenon of a country, in many respect* the most idealistic in the world, /throwing overboard natural justice in the interests of economic expediency. It is one of those instances where 'the national policy is temporarily out of line with the individual conscience. However, just as there wag a big body of American opinion with "an accurate perception of what constituted justice.in the case of the-Panama Canal tolls, ao there is a large body of American opinion to-day which is not. satisfied with the present position as regards the subsidies to American ship^, and to this must be added the rapidly increasing section who Me disaster ahead fromthe purely economic point of view. If I judge the American character aright the cure will come from within as much 'as from without, and the principles enthroned in the Jones-White Act will go the way of such other national backslidings as the slave trade and our own opium tra.de in China, In the meantime our duty is clear to take the steps that are necessary, to protect our own local interests and to ensure at least equality of terms to our'local concerns in the intercolonial trades. —I am, etc., FAIR PLAY.