SUBSIDISED SHIPPING

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21716, 3 February 1934, Page 14

SUBSIDISED SHIPPING

Sir,—While I am in full agreement with the views expressed on this question by many of your correspondents, a perusal of the opinions voiced by many influential shipowners in Groat Britain leaves one with the impression thai the question is not so easy of solution as it would appear to the average layman. Take the American case for example. They cannot build vessels at a figure approaching European costs, and they argue that the amount of their subsidy is fixed on a scale which enables them to compete with the foreign shipowners. That argument would be reasonable enough if it wero not apparent that when a shipowner presents his case to a Government, tho owner is not likely to err on the side of modesty. On the other hand, we can hardly expect a nation of 120,000,000 people to permit their trade to be conducted largely by foreign interests. They, like ourselves, are determined to have a mercantile marine. Tho protection of American shipping between Hawaii and other American ports is. after all, only what Australian and New Zealand Governments have been doing for years. In fact, wo go a step further; by our labour laws we prevent British as well as foreign vessels from trading on our coasts. Hqw, then, can we logically demand from the United States Government tho abolition of a restriction we ourselves impose on all vessels except those on the New Zealand register? If we impose restrictions on American vessels, tho United States Government can retaliate in a way which would affect British shipowners to a far greater degree than they would gain by any restrictive laws that we may impose. Tho trade between the Philippines and tho United States is at present open to vessels of all nationalities. Over 33 per cent of this trade is carried in British ships and the balance is equally divided between American and ships other than British. This trade alone is vastly more important to Britain than any trade that Australia and New Zealand could divert by imposing further restrictions. Would we not show our loyalty in a much more effective way by removing tho restrictive measures wo now impose on British shipping? I am expressing theso views in the hope that New Zealand will not fall to tho ingenuous suggestions made by Australia which—as you clearly point out in your woli -considered leader in a recent issue—wouid meau that Sydney, being a terminal port, would retain the Marson service, and the only one to suffer would be New Zealand. Our Australian friends are reallv too generous! Great Britain and the Empire acting in concert will no doubt evolve some method of protecting British shipping. New Zealand should treat tho question as an Empire one, and not imperil British interests by attempting to walk where angels fear to tread. E. Keys.