The Hastings Standard Published Daily WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1897. THE FREIGHT QUESTION.

Hastings Standard, Issue 444, 6 October 1897, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1897. THE FREIGHT QUESTION.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The efforts of the Freight Reduction Committee in concluding a contract with a firm outside the shipping' ring continues to afford those interested with cause for complaint. The question has received attention in the House ; it was mentioned in the Governor's Speech, wherein it was made to appear that the Government had forced upon the shipping companies the reduction that has been made, while the Opposition speakers in the Address in Reply discredited the connection of the Government with the matter and attribute to the Freight Reduction Committee the honor of having forced the reductions. Mr Charles Lewis, one of the Chnstchurch City members and the junior Wnip of the Opposition, speaking as though holding a brief for the shipping companies (and here it is advisable to bear in mind that the Cathedral City is the head-quarters of the shipping companies), fulminated against the member for Wairarapa as being the moving spirit of the Freight Reduction Committee and the chief instigator of the movement which has resulted adversely to the shipping interests. Mr Lewis said pretty much all that could be said in favor of the He drew a pathetic picture of the patience of the shipping shareholder, _ and showed how this unfortunate individual has lost heavily by his investments of tonnage, and against this picture he showed the magnificent profits that have been yearly distributed by the meat freezing companies. Another useful point clearly brought out by Mr Lewis was the difficulty of obtaining freights, or rather the great cost involved in sending the ocean tramps to the bye-ports to pick up the cargo, all of which is quite true, but somehow it is not sufficiently convincing that a reduction of freight was not needed.

The shipping companies are partly to blame, for undoubtedly the system they have been working upon was wholly against the producers. What appears to have been done was to, in a measure, subsidise merchant shippers and associations on the understanding that they would influence freights. The subsidy has been worked in a heculiar way. Thus the National Dairy Association has been in the receipt of a bonus of £BOO a year, while the merchant shippers acting as agents for the shipowners have received commissions on the freights obtained, It ia obvious that these bonuses and commissions haye Jjeen drawn from the producers, while the money so obtained has not been of any material benefit to the shipowners. There may be some reasonable excuse urged for the appointment of agents of the shipping companies at ports where the vessels call and where the company does not deem it advisable, on the score of expense, to open an office of its own ■; but the gams has not stopped at this, as for instance in \VelUngtpn, where the companies have their own offices, there are several agents of the companies. The principle underlying this has been explained to the writer by a fflfcmbet of the Freight Reduction Committee. It appears that these merchants are supposed to control thy wool clip ; that is to say, having advanced against clips and having clients who consign their

wool to them these merchants have a command of wool cargo, and it therefore becomes of interest to the shipping companies to keep in with them. The merchant shipper thus obtains a commission on the sale of wool, interest on the money advanced against it, and a commission on the cost of sending it to London. That the merchant shippers do not possess this control of the wool i:? what the Freight Reduction Committee has amply demonstrated, and the shipping companies will have to revise their system of management. The leakage in commissions and bonuses must be stopped and the producer be given the benefit. It is no use arguing that because in the past the shareholders have not received an adequate return on the capital invested no reduction is to be made. The producers of New Zealand have to compete in the open market with the producers of other countries, and no sentimental considerations must be allowed to bar the way of success. But the direct steamers are entitled to encouragement. We pointed out in a previous issue what is being done in Canada primarily in the interests of the produce trade and incidentally with respect to the shipping companies. The ocean tramps in New Zealand waters are no doubt put to considerable expense in steaming from port to port to pick up cargo, and we do not see that there is any need for this if the coastal service was in a position to do the business. If cold storage accommodation was provided at the four chief centres and a fleet of coastal vessels suitable for carrying the produce were put into commission the big liners would not need to do the tramping work. But so long as the big steamers can be got to call at roadstead ports and out-of-the-way places there is no chance for a coastal service. Another pointthat we wish to urge in favor of the direct steamers is the desirability of the Government subsidising them. The money that is being spent on the 'Frisco mail service we regard as wasted money, and to subsidise the Vancouver service would be equally as bad. It is not quick and regular transit of mails that New Zealand wants, but quick and regular transit of our produce. It is the produce that furnishes us with the means of our many obligations, and as these have a tendency to increase the output of produce will necessarily need to show an improvement. The greatest cause for complaint which the New Zealand Dairy Commissioner in London finds is the irregularity in the arrivals of produce—one week a glut and the next week scarcity, to be followed again by glut of supplies, and market values are thus knocked about to the detriment of the producers. The direct steamers ought to be subsidised as mail carriers and they should be compelled under any such contract to furnish a fortnightly service of first-class steamers fitted with adequate cold storage accommodation. In fact the Canadian system should be adopted as far as possible. The rates of freight now charged fcr dairy produce are by no means excessive ; what is wanting is some regularity in the shipment. If this could be obtained and the quality of the produce is kept at a high level the returns to our dairy farmers would be greater than they are now. We hope something will be done this session in the interest of the produce ti'ade, and if this is done the shipping companies will derive an indirect if not a direct benefit.