EMPIRE SHIPPING SERVICES

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 3715, 19 October 1926, Page 7

EMPIRE SHIPPING SERVICES

PROBLEMS FOR THE CONFERENCE [By Auchih.u.u Hurd, in the ‘Argus.’] The principle which has now been accepted in theory, if not in practice, throughout the*world is that not only the seas, but also the ports, should be free to all shipping without discrimination. It will he for tiie Imperial Conference to consider how far that principle is being carried out, and to discuss ways and means of giving it wider application, so that British shipping, whether operating under the Hag of the United Kingdom or that of one of the dominions, may always have fair play. International conferences, ennsisting of representatives of producers, merchants, and ship owners of all the great maritime countries, have already discussed these problems, so that when the Imperial Conference assembles the Prime Ministers and their colleagues will find that the ground has already been explored thoroughly. OAe of the great embarrassments of the moment consists of the large amount of shipping which is owned and operated, directly or indirectly, by various Governments. The most conspicu ous example of this policy is furnished by the United States, which, during the war, in the interests of the allied cause, built a large amount of tonnage, which it retains and operates at a loss. It is estimated that from first to last this shipping has cost the American taxpayers about £300,000,000, and, although no provision is being made for the depreciation of the vessels which are growing old, the deficit every year still amounts to £8,000,000 to £10,000,000. American citizens are being taxed from year to,year to support a commercially unprofitable undertaking, and it cannot he contended that they gain any advantage from this expenditure, which constitutes an injustice to the producers and consumers of other countries. As Sir Frederick Lewis recently declared. Governments “ cannot usefully and should not embark in commerce. As statesmen can conduct the affairs of the State better than business men, so business men can carry on the commerce of the world better than statesmen.” Statesmen as ship owners are amateurs who create muddle. Government interference v ; th shipping has always been disastrous, whether considered from the point of view of the taxpayers, who have teen victimised, or that of traders. All such adventures upset the international freight market to the injury of all who use the sea, and impede the efficient movement of goods and passengers by sea.

GOVERNMENTS AS SHIP OWNERS. In considering the various problems of sea transport the Imperial Conference will have to endeavor to find the common denominator between the various interests concerned. It can then pass on to consider some of the difficulties which are handicapping the industry. One of these is the doctrine that “ the King can do no wrong,” which, in theory at least, applies to all merchant ships which belong to a State. It is contended that when a State-owned ship comes into collision with a private merchantman and destroys or injures that ship and her cargo, the owners of the ship as well as of the cargo should be entitled to have the question of liability settled in the law courts. As the law stands at present a Government can bring an action against a private ship owner or a private merchant, but neither has any right of redress from the State. This question was discussed at the diplomatic conference at Brussels last spring, and a convention was drawn up which awaits ratification. The matter has been complicated by objections since raised by the Admiralty regarding the effect which _ the convention might have on the British doctrine of blockade in time of war. Ship owners and traders generally are looking to the Imperial Conference to assist in finding a way out of the impasse. It is stiir hoped "that by the time the conference assembles the Admiralty will be in a position to give an assurance that the convention, if the French text be taken as the standard of interpretation, may be regarded as satisfactory from the national point of view. SAFETY OF PASSENGERS BY SEA.

The conference will learn that international agreement has been reached upon the rules governing the carriage of goods by sea. They represent an international bargain struck between all the parties interested in maritime trade —ship owners, merchants, shippers, and receivers, as well as bankers and underwriters. Broadly stated, the rules lay down that the ship owner must take care to supply a seaworthy ship and must accept responsibility lor the loading, stowing, care, and unloading of the goods, while the underwriter is responsible for navigational risks—acts of God, as they are called—lire, and other misadventures, the only reservation being that the ship must not deviate unreasonably from the contract voyage. These new rules represent a considerable restriction of the freedom of contract of the shipowner. He on his part is now looking with confidence for co-operation by all who are concerned in sea transport on simh matters as safety of life at sea, the subdivision of passenger snips, the international sanitary c •nveiition (which has to do mainly with the lolling of rats —a most costly busmee-), double taxation, and other regulations, which are all tending to increase tJie cost of sea carriage, besides proving an embarrassment to those who provide shipping services for too peoi_.es of the limpiifc. The present British law with reference to the safety oi hte at sea is proving a great and expensive embarrassment, besides increasing the risk of loss of life, because it results in boats being piled up on the deck of a steamer in conditions which render their use in ease of accident almost impossible. Every year Inty times as many people are killed in the streets of London as meet their death through accidents to British ships. 1 he shipping industry in tbe United Kingdom, as well as in the dominions, urges that the regulations should be such as will not lead to this happy immunity from loss of liio by sea being hazarded. British shipowners arc deeply concerned over this matter, tor their prestige is involved. They desire freedom to apply their own experience and the expert knowledge ot their naval architects and shipbuilders to making travel by sea even safer than it is to-day. COMPULSORY INSURANCE. Another interesting development which will be reviewed by the Imperial Conference is ilia I of tbe compulsory insurance of passengers. At present

it is a gamble whether the passenger who lias been injured or the representatives of a passenger who lias lost bis life at sea can recover anything, and, if anything, what the amount will be. If thefe is no negligence there are no moral or legal grounds for any claim, but even where negligence can be established the amount which may be recovered depends upon a great variety of circumstances, such as the law of the country where the proceedings are brought, the view taken by the jury, whether the wrongdoing ship is lost or not, its size, and the terms of the passenger’s contract. The position is obviously unsatisfactory. Sir Norman Hill, 'the great shipping lawyer, has stated that 40 per cent, of the money paid by one shipping insurance association has gone in law costs, and lie has contended that, if account bo taken of the law costs payable by the claimants, they cannot have received as much as one-half of the money which the shipowners have spent through their insurance chibs. He has suggested, consequently, that an insurance of, say, £IOO or £l5O, might be provided for every passenger without payment of any premium, and with no material additional expense to the shipowner, and, therefore, without involving any increase in passage money. Those who may wish to insure in a greater sum would be entitled to demand a policy for a larger amount on payment of an appropriate premium. Shipowners regarded this scheme of compulsory passenger insurance with some suspicion when it was first presented to them, but there is an increased inclination to accept it, provided all the maritime countries of the world come into line. On this matter the Imperial Conference can render valuable aid.

It is essential, as the Prime Ministers will undoubtedly record, as they recorded at the last conference, that the British peoples shall have the freest possible access to the seas on terms of absolute equality with the peoples of other States. If necessary, they must combine to discourage all acts of “flag discrimination” as they are generally called. Their ships, wherever they sail and whatever ports they visit, must he treated as well as any other ships. They do not ask more than that, hut that, as the last Imperial Conference declared, is their right.