FREIGHT DISCRIMINATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15557, 14 March 1914, Page 8

FREIGHT DISCRIMINATION.

RATES FROM GERMAN PORTS.

VERY " UNSATISFACTORY."

ROYAL COMMISSION'S COMMENT.

Ax interesting extract from the second interim report of the Dominions Royal Commission has been published in the Shipping Gazette and Lloyd's List-weekly summary. The extract refers to the. evidence taken in Auckland regarding goods shipped from German ports to colonial pcrts, via London, the freights oil which are in some cases lower than the freights charged on similar goods shipped from London by the same vessel to the same port. The report continues.: / , . "We find that this state of affairs has been in existence . for at least ,10- years. Representations against it. were : made to the Royal Commission on Shipping' Rings, and, on inquiry of the Board of Trade in' London, we learh that similar .complaints to those made, before that commission have occasionally been received since. t We are. also informed by the Board of Trade that; they have in some cases communicated with chipping companies engaged >ri the New Zealand carrying trade, but without eliciting any useful statements from 'nem

"We have ourselves, both in New Zealand and in London, called the attention of the shipping firms concerned to the evidence on the subject, but up to the piesent they have not effectively attempted to controvert the statements made by the witnesses in New Zealand. The New Zealand Shipping Company have informed us that they do not think that any good purpose would be served by their giving evidence on the question. The «haw, Savill, and Albion Company,, while admitting their inability to reconcile the figures, add the following remarks:— "' We would like to'etate, however, that the rates of freight charged by us for the conveyance of foreign goms are in nocase fixed by us, but in every instance are exactly the same as -are charged by the local foreign shipowner for the conveyance of the same goods by his 6j;eamer to the same destination. It is He, not We, who fixes the rate.' " We desire to record the opinion that tins explanation is thoroughly' unsatisfactory, and we regret that in 'view of the grave nature of the charges made, the companies concerned have not deemed it expedient to give evidence. It appears to us, on the information before us, that the practice runs directly counter to the patriotic and Imperial intentions of the JSiew Zealand Legislature, and acts detrimentally and unfairlv to British trade "