Do the Shipping Companies Rule the Massey Government and New Zealand?

Maoriland Worker, Volume 4, Issue 147, 26 November 1913, Page 1

Do the Shipping Companies Rule the Massey Government and New Zealand?

finding of Royal Commission: The SJ.3.S. Co. "J Monopoly"

•'Our CMfttal trade is controlled by a oambine, the predominant partner btfhg the Union Steamship comWiny. "—-Extract, Cost of Living R«A band of monopolists known as 'The Union Steamship Company" has ' lonjt ke en at work along the coasts of New Zealand: Periodically the> "hokl up" the travelling public and demand ' «dclitiQiii»l fiw-es from them in the- most shameless manner. At times, these monopolists go 'on strike,' , and refueo to carry cargo except at largely enhanced freights. Opposition lias come alang in the shape of rival companies, but these hare always been '"frozen out" or bought out by the monopolists, or compelled to "some to reason by the aid of coercion. These facts ' are known generally to Everybody, * but tie-re has been little organised enquiry Hid no well-oiicerted attempt to coutrol tli© rtionopoly in the interests. nf 1 the citizens sa a whole, and so :t continues to levy tribute not merely on coastal and outwnrd freights, but also on intercolonial and isiwaul freights iid well. At the present time- these monopolists are engaged, with gnm humor, in exploiting the panic and prejudice of on© section- of their tributaries for the purpose of further ex- ' ploiting another section. For the general information of those people who ure open to be informed, the following summary of the finding given by the Rosal Commission set up to ©uquire into the Cost of Living last year, is published. The Commission's finding is that a "monopoly 7or "trust , * exist* in regard to New Zealand shipping, but, up to the present, no proceedings hare been taken against that "monopoly" under the legislation -special!.' provided for such purposes. Th<.' members of the Cost of Living Commission were- .Andrew Fuirbairn, merchitu, Christchurc-h; Edwin HaiT, farmer, Auckland; G. W. L»a<ll<?y, farmer, Ashburtou, W. ft. Macdonald. solicitor, Westport: John Robertson. M.P.: James Might, university protestor, ChmtehurcH; W A Veitch, IIP.; Edward Tiogear. Ex-Seccfttafy for Labor. Wellington. The extracts which follow were the UNANIMOUS finding ef ties* gentlemen. FINDING OF COMMISSION. "That a monopoly exists in the carriage by sea of coal from the West Coast ports is undoubted; and apparently the shipping companies that have effected tJie monopoly have each clearly denned "territory" on which the others do not trespass. Our investigations, necessarily incomplete owing to the limited time at ouf disposal, did not discover the nature and the terms of the arrangement that apparently exists between the Union Steamship Company on the one h.aixl, and three smaller companies, vie., the Maoriland Company, the Anchor Company, and the Canterbury Shipping Company on the other. But it seems clear that some arrangement does exist whereby these smaller companies have allotted to them by the Un/ion Company a »pecified portion of tii« cAWiage of coal. Mr. F. F. Munro, of ■ Westport, has, In the opinion of the Commission, made out a strong prima facie case for -further investigation." MB. MUNRO'S EVIDENCE. The following are extracts from the evidence of Mr. F. Munro, shipping agent, Westport, as referred to above. Mr. Munro sated that he was "blocked" both as a shipping agent and as it coal buyer by the direct and indirect operations of the Union Steamship Co. "The real crux of the situation," he said, "is that one cannot buy coal for tjoastwiee distribution in New Zealand. . . "i.e., owing to .the 'control' of the mines' output by the Union Steamship Company. "... The control of the coal carried with it the control of inWa.nl freights into coal ports; the inwiird freights aro mainly foodstuffs, «fc, inquired by the inhabitants. In my opinion and experience, that portfon of tlio Dominion pays from 30 to 40 per cent, more in freight than •it Should do under a legitimate free trade. It also has the effect of making the cost sof travel to residents in those parts 'j&solutely excessive. The passenger

(Contributed.)

traffic it concentrated in the Union. Company—the .test are only freighters. The Union Company are able to charge *xborbitaut rates." Later. Mr. Munro said: "With regard to further precise statement as to a vend or combination of coal-owiiers and shipping companies in restraint of the coal trade on the West Coast of New Zealand, I have no hesitation in stating that from my Experience an arrangement exists, controlled by th* Union Steamship Company, and affecting all the smaller shipping companies now trading in New Zealand, to carry the output of the owners at rates of freights arranged between themselves, i.e., the shipping companies; that the agreement of the shipping combine with the coal companies ships are to be gievn preference in loading; f .o.b. shipments are to be <4ifecoiwaged by My possible excuse. The mines controlling the price and date of loading tan, and I believe do, absolutely discourage competitive trade as regards sea-borne coal." Mr. Munro gave instances of "free' ships being "fr.ozfcn out." After waiting wveks for cargo on the West Coast, they had to leave iv ballast. MR, G. JOACHIM'S EVIDENCE. Mr. G. Joachim, managing director of the Westport Coal Company, also gave evidence. He was asked: "Is there any agreement between you and the Union Steamship Company to give them preference?" Hβ replied: '"We have to give them all our carrying." He explained that the Westport Coal Company also carried coal in its own boats, and was asked later: "There is no understanding between the Westport Coal Company and the Union Company, by which you ate to give the Union Company preference in regard to eoalf" Mr. Joachim replied: "I I have said we give the Union Company all our carrying over and above what ',>! send by our own boats. It is understood that they get all the surplus, but we.have the right to charter or send by' other steamers to where we , like. It is a freehand open arrangement." INTERESTIXG COlt R ESPONDENCK. The finding of the Commission then contkm&s: "Three important questions naturally suggest themselves .on a consideration of the evidence of Mr. G. Joachim, managing director of tiie Westport Coal Company, and Mr. F. F. Mun.ro. (1) The nature of the understanding between- the shipping companies mentioned above: (2) the nature of the understanding between the shipping in the carriage of ooal and th<? coal company; (3) the effect of these understanding on (a) the price of coal, (b> inward freights to Westport and Greymouth, (c) employment nt the mines. "To show the necessity of enquiry on the lines above suggested, we quote from correspondence supplied to us that- passed between the general manager of the Union Steamship Company and the chairman of directors of one of the coal companies whose mines are situated on the West Coast." Extract (1) urged the advisability of relying on one shipping organisation, and the Union Company said in this to the mining company: "We shall not take exception to your shipping coal by the shipping companies now trading to the West Coast, viz., Anchor Line, Canterbury Steamship Company, and Maoriland Company, provided it is understood that Wellington and Lyttelton shipments are restricted to us, and that to such other parts as our steamers trade we shall receive preference." Thus a "monopoly" was requested for Wellington and Lyttelton, and a "preference" for other parts of New Zealand. Extract (2) was fTom the coal company to the Union Company, £.nd asked for further information. Extract (3) was from the- Union Company to the coal company, an<F reads as. follows: "With regard to preference that I ask for to ports other than Wellington and Lyttelton, what we intend to convoy is that as we undersaud you will be relying on us to furnish tonnage to keep the mine going you will, not encourage f.o.b. sale/ and if you were loading one of our steamers at Westport you would not at the same time supply coal f.o.b.

untass our steamer was fully loaded. With reference to your shipping coal by other steamers, in order tint a vricl»r interpretation should apply, we are agreeable that you should be free to ship by other coastal companies now trading in New ZtnbiuJ." That is to say, no now companies are to be allowed to come in. because over them the Union Company may not. have the 'control' it ha 3 over the 'companies now trading in New Zealand.' " Extract (4) is from the coal company to the Union Company, and reads: "The correspondence regarding the subject of freights contained, in your letters was duly considered by our directors, and it was decided to accept the arrangement therein set out for the texin of two years." - THE COMMISSION SPEAKS. "The arrangement therein set out," continues the Commission, "was apparently the best arrangement the coal company could secure, and your Commissioners must not be understood as in any way reflecting oni its action m making the best terms possible for the carriage of its product. Nor are we in a position to say what subsequent 'arrangements' it mr.de on the expiry of the period during which th© contract was to.hoJd good. But it is a fair deduction to draw that, competition being successfully stifled in the carriage of coal, there i% a constant danger that the public will be charged a higher rate of freight than the service is legitimately worth. Even if the excess were only small, say Is. per ton, this would rnea.n an annual contribution of at loast £40,000 that the users of coal would pay into the coffers of the shipping monopoly." CAPITALISTIC PATRIOTISM. Mr. Massey stated last week that the great difficulty in the way of a settlement of the dispute was that the Federation of Labor was a " foreign organisation ki by foreigners." Oh heck 11 Now, what about the shipping companies and how do they display their all-British qualities. What has the Report of the Commission to say on this? No wonder the Massey Government has carefully suppressed the Kcport—it brings out in a cold, dispassionate way, some disconcerting facts for the capitalistic interests in New Zealand PagA 72 of'the Report contains the following: FREIGHT RATES OX IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM : The system of freight rebates practised by contain shipping companies for the greater portion of the carrying tr::de from the United Kingdom to New Zealand amounts practically to a

complete monopoly in tliat trade. For the year ending 30th. September, 1911, the importation From abroad (not including Au'tralif'.) to the runt of Wellington amounted to 239,715 tons. This indicates the increased feoGt to the public which followed the recent increase of inward freights' from 2s. biL to ss. ■Pβ? ton. on measurement goods. THIS MONOPOLY SHIPPING COMPANIES TO DISCRIMLAIXATE BETWEEN < CONTINENTAL AND BRITISH GOODS. AND TO CHARGE A HIGHER KATE ON THE LATTER. Through Conti. nental charges from Hamburg and Antwerp main ports are, in many instances, much lower than from London to New Zealand. From private inquiries made by the Commission, and verified by thx? inspection of documents, the differential rates between the British and Continental classifications are U9 follows, vi 2. :—

" British classification" is the scale of freight charges iixed by the New Zealand Shipping Company and the Shaw-Savill Company, and are now ruling. Within the last twelve months freights were advanced 2s. 6d. per ton on glassware, earthenware, chinaware. and hollow-ware, and ss. per ton on both fine and rough, measurement. Yet they carry goods from foreign ports at the Continental classification rate, which included the cost of transit from Hamburg c and Antwwp to London. Freight carges on bottles, glassware, and chinaware add fully CO per cent, to the preferential rates given to foro'Vn as against British str>r!;ers MOT-iE THAN NULLIFIES THE .ADVANTAGES GIVEN TO BEITIKIf MANTJFACTURKKS UNDER TUiO PKEFEiIFIsTIAL CUSTOMS T.\i!fFK. The Now Zealand s'liupimc companiesare penalizing their best customers in order to foster the trade of Great Britain's keenest comipe-titons. . . . . The policy of the New Zealand chipping companies means GIVING A SUBSIDY

TO CONTINENTAL SHIPPERS t<? the manifest disadvantage of the British manufacturer, and AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC,who pays this subsidy by the higher freights charged from British pons, arid thus saves the foreign shippers the- cost of subsidised freights on the goods shipped to New Zealand. So much for the patriotism of tb© New Zealand shipping monopoly, but Mr. Massey does r/ofc t-ell us that those concerns, the bulk of the shares of wmch are held outside Aiistralasia are "foreign." What-a miserable attempt to exploit tho p sue do patriotism of the ijN'ew Zealfjidcrs to prejudice thorn against the U.F.L by terming it a I "foreign" organisation, the while the j genuinely foreign-owned shipping mpnoi poly squeezes the New Zealand producer at every point, and Mr. Massey complacently acquiesces in times of peace, and now, in times of industrial warfare lends the whole weight of his Government to help them crush the genuine New Zealand workers. Could hypocrisy go further? "Faugh, a breath of civet, good apothecary."

British ContinentClassifi- el Classification, catioa. s. d. s. d. Bottles SO 0 23 6 Chinaware 37 6 29 6 Glassware 37 G 29 6 Chairs 42 6 29 6 Guns 62 6 39 0 Mirror plate glass, 57 G 42 0 Cutlery, spoons, and forks 62 0 39 0 Electroplated ware... 62 6 39 0 ("39 0 Rough measurement. 45 0 s and (40 0 r02 6 39 0 Fino measurement... ] and and C65 0 47 6