SHIPPING TRADE

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 25, 29 July 1932, Page 6

SHIPPING TRADE

FOREIGN COMPETITION

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —The president of the Navy League, in his retiring address at the recent annual meeting, did a valuable service in again focusing public attention on 'the menace of unfair and unequal foreign ship* ping competition that is not o»ly threatening but actually, to use Mr. Perry's owii phrase, in process of "scuttling" ouV British mercantile marine. It is also indeed heartening to learn from to-day's cable news from.the Ottawa Conference that at long last the several Governments of the British Commonwealth o£ Nations whose territories border the Pacific Ocean where this competition is most severely felt are proposing to consider steps to counteract its baleful effects on our own mercantile marine. It is worth while' at this stage" to once more emphasise the main features and inequalities of this competition (entirely American), which is now pressing so disastrously on New Zealand-owned and manned mail and cargo steamers trading in the Pacific. Not only are our vessels debarred from carrying traffic between American ports (and these, of course, include Pago Pago and Honolulu), but they have to meet a trading competition that is financially State-aided to an extent -far beyond the means of any of the British Governments concerned. We are officially informed that this policy is in accordance with the settled determination of the U.SLA. to create "an expanded and modernised merchant marine, providing a regular aud speedy mail passenger and freight service to the world's ports/ and incidentally to supersede British mercantile supremacy on -the Seven Seas. And it may interest your readers to know that in furtherance of this policy the United States Post Office Department in 1930-31 awarded forty-one mail contracts (frankly admitted by the Postmaster-General to be really a "ship-subsidy") to cover a period of ten years under which 100 modern, vessels were to be constructed by • private American companies iat a" cost of 300,000,000 dollars, and to .receive during these ten years an aggregate mail pay amounting to 280,000,000 dollars. When' announcing this policy in June, 1931, at Washington the Postmaster-General stated that 24 of these modern vessels had been completed, and that 24 more were on the way at various U.S A. shipyards. We know that two of these "modern vessels" are now competing with o^r.own mail steamers between the principal British ports in the Pacific—Suva, Fiji; Auckland, New Zealand; and Sydney'and Melbourne, Australia—in addition to another service of cargo steamers. .The unfairness, and inequality of this competition will be better understood when it is realised > that the huge sum of money that these modern vessels are costing '.; \ (approximately £00.000,000 at par exchange) is being advanced by the United States Shipping Board to the shipping . companies with whom we in New Zealand, Australia, and Fiji are concerned at, in one ease, one quarter of 1 per cent., and, in the other, at three-eighths of 1" per cent., interest, the capital monies being secured os the vessels over a period of twenty years. Is it any wonder that our. New Zealand and British mercantile marine is being severely aud dangerous handicapped by such financially buttressed competitors, who have in addition their own rich coastwise trade completely preserved to them. We may admire the effective manner in which our American competitors are seeking to secure domination of the world's mercantile marine, but knowing the nature of the competition we can no longer afford to neglect any means of making conditions more' nearly equal for our own vessels. As similar financial aid is quite beyond our resources, the means for assisting seem to be'limited to two methods, first, by preserving the trade between British Pacific ports to our own vessels; and, second, by patronising and supporting ;yith our fares, freights, and mails, our own New Zealand and British vessels. As to the former, I should like to think that some effective agreement can, be reached by the Canadian, Fijian, New Zealand, and Australian delegates at Ottawa. As to the latter, neither patriotism nor even the urgent promptings of self-preser-. vation seem sufficient to deter certain New Zealanders and Australians with money to spend from patronising these foreign vessels, and thus helping to "scuttle the ships of our own mercantile marine." I Biiggest, therefore, our Parliament could not do better than; adopt the yplan of our American competitors in order to ensure that our citizens shall loyally support their own vessels. Section, 2of tho amending Navigation Law. of U.S.A., 1898, provides that "no foreign vessel' shall transport passengers between ports in U.S.A. under a penalty of 200 dollars for each passenger," and taking as an example the first-class fare between! Honolulu and Saii Francisco, this penalty equals a 200 per. cent. .tax. . '■• ' ■ < ; It is interesting to recall that not so long ago the president of the Matsori {Steamship Line,-being m Honolulu and receiving an urgent call to return to .the mainland, had' to travel by. a Japanese vessel and pay a fine of 200 dollars for doing so. A penalty of this kind is to my mind the only effective means of preserving New Zealand fares for New Zealand and British vessels, and 'the sooner it /is> imposed the better chance will, our. mercantile marine have ■of •weathering the economic storm," which, is so nearly overwhelming them.— I am, etc., t ' ' . ■ •■ J. D. GHAY. ,28th July.