BUTTER-FREIGHTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13783, 23 June 1905, Page 2

BUTTER-FREIGHTS.

H> : TO THE EDITOH. Sir, —Tho terms ef tho extended contract about to be entered into between the New Zealand Dairy Associations and the Shaw, Savill and Albion and New Zealand Shipping Companies, are available to the public, and in the interest of tho butter producers of tho colony it is necessary that a comparison should be made between this contract and the two contracts recently entered into on behalf of tho Australian producers of butter. The full text of the contract entered into between tho Australian shippers and tho P. and O. and Orient mail steamers, as it appears in the Sydney “Daily Telegraph” cf May 23, provides for a weekly steamer via the Suez Canal. The duration of the contract is one year, with the option to the shipping companies to extend for another year, providing notice of the desired extension is given threo months before the termination of tho first pex-iod, tho rate of freight being Is lOd per box of 571 b, equal to £3 13s 4d per ton. Tho second contract entered into between Australian shippers is with the . White Star, Aberdeen and Lund’s lines, is to carry butter to London via South Africa. Tho duration of tho contract is three years, the, rate of freight being 3-gd per lb,. equal to £3 10s per ton. New Zealand’s contract provides for a fortnightly service, tho duration of the contract being five years, and the rate of freight -|d and 11 -16 d per lb, equal to £5 16s 8d and £6 8s Id per ton. Now, what is tho value of the reduction made by the shipping company which is stated to amount to £25,000 per annum. _ The 'cancelled contract provided for a frieght of £7 and £7 11s Bd, but therewas a clause in that contract under which the shipping companies undertook to pay coastal freight on butter from the port of origin to tho loading port of tho steamer, to tho extent of 10s per ton, and there was another clause agreeing to rebate tho Dairy Association a commission of 5 per cent, equal to 7s and 7s 7d per ton. Apparently both of these concessions disappear out of the new contract, and;leave the following as the position: Maximum freight under tho old contract £7 11s Bd, coastal freight 10s, commission, 7s 7d—17s 7d, £6 i4s Id ; maximum freight under the new contract £6 8s 4d, reducttion per ton 5s 9d; or minimum freight under the old contract £7, less coastal freight 10s, commission 7s 7d—l7s 7d, £6 Is od; minimum freight under tho new contract £5 16s Bd, reduction per ton 5s 9d. Where does the saving of per annum to tho producer, under the new contract, come in? Certainly not on tho freight on butter. The question to bo considered is, How is the butter industry of New Zealand to iMd its own against that of Australia witr. the disadvantage of a freight contract «nde? which wo pay from £2 3s 4d to £2 In.- qd par ton more freight, equal to somethw like 70 per cent? I say, without fear contradiction, that the position is absurd ) and, with the managing director of u-> 0 Taieri and Peninsula Company, 1 an. compelled to exclaim, Why this indecent haste to enter into an extended contract wliioh only perpetuates and does v.ot remedy the unjust ness of the contract which is being determined? In dealing with this matter I have not referred to the reduced rates of freight which ai\ provided for in tho second period of the New Zealand contract, as their objvjt, is so obvious and the period of then coming into existence so remote. —I am, otC ' , ONE WHO IS INTERESTED. ■