THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1902. SHIPPING SUBSIDIES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12446, 1 September 1902, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1902. SHIPPING SUBSIDIES.

The American. Shipping Combine has led to a recrudescence cf the agitation in favour of British shipping subsidies, and the question was one of the subjects of discussion at the Imperial Conference. The British shipowner feels that he is 'the victim of unfair competition on the high trade routes where he lias to run his vessels side by side with foreign subsidised lines. A memorandum laid before the Select Committee of the House of Commons set up to investigate the matter shows to what extent the German G-ovemment assists the two principal German shipping com,panics in the way of subsidies. The two subsidised German steamship lines are the North German Lloyd and the German East. African. Steamship Companies. The former is subsidised for its service to Eastern Asia and to Australia, and the latter for its service to and round Africa. , In accordance with a contract concluded with the German Government in 1898 the North German Lloyd Company receives an annual eubsid.y of £280,000. At the beginning of 1901 the company had a fleet of 114 steamers (including nine on the stocks for the Transatlantic and other lines), aggregating 502,487 tons. The German East African Company, with a fleet cf 130 steamers, aggregating 553,287 tons, receives an annual subsidy of £67,500. ■ The total shipping subsidies paid by the German Government to encourago German shipping represents an annual charge of £347.500. . The subsidies

amount to something over Gs per ton gross of the two fleets, but as only the vessels employed on certain trade routes are subsidised the ratio is considerably higher for the steamers actually subsidised. With a knowledge of the true bearing of subsidies upon the foreign shipping tracle, the Special Committee' of the Liverpool Shipowners' Association recommended a subsidy of 10s per gross ton on all sailing vessels over 500 tons engaged in long-voyage trade routes. Giving evidence before the Select- Committee of the House of Commons, Mr R. W. Leyland, chairman of that committee, showed that the French Government bestowed . bounties amounting to .£527,843 per annum upon 150 vessels with an aggregate of 351,119 tons, or an amount equal to £1 10s per gross ton. The subsidised vessels are utilised as trailing schools for recruiting the French navv. The effect of the foreign shipping bounties upon British shipping was admirably illustrated by Mr Leyland. In November last, he stated, a vessel of the Leyland line, of a capacity of 3200 tons, arrived in ballast at the port of Astoria, Oregon. At that time she was the only disengaged ship on the river, and the. ruling figures for freights were 37s 6d to 40s per ton. His firm were negotiating at that figure, when a French subsidised vessel happened along, and immediately cut the rates to 28s 9d, at which figure it was impossible for the British ship to* compete. Mr Leyland also showed that while the French Government was paying shipping bounties for the encouragement of. French shipping amounting to over half a million sterling per annum, British shipping wad penalised to the tune of half a million for light dues in the United Kingdom. Light dues, he added, were charged by no other European State, with the single exception of Turkey. Then, again, he showed, British ships were subject to regulations that did not apply to foreign ships, which, in consequence, escaped the expense cf Board of Trade supervision'. Under the French bounty law the subsidies for next year will aggregate £769,34-3, but after that will gradually diminish. In view of what France and Germany are doing in that direction, Mr Leyland expressed the opinion that the British Government should subsidise sailing vessels, subject to their being utilised to train seamen for the navy. Sir Edgar. Vincent further pointed out that Government'bounties would save sailing vessels from extinction, which otherwise seems inevitable. Mr Leyland showed that on long voyages French shipowners, looked to the freights to cover expenses,' while the bounties provided the profit. He instanced a case where on a long voyage a British ship made a loss of £625, while a French vessel of similar size, receiving a bounty of £5832, made a profit of £2525./ Manifestly British ships are unable to compete under such, conditions. An alteration of the navigation laws, so as to place foreign vessels, in.the, same position as British ships , with respect to load line, etc., while navigating British waters, Mr Leyland stated, would help British shipping,- but he did not know how that could be carried out. He further stated, that his committee had approved a scheme restricting the trade between Great Britain and her colonies, and between one colony and. another, to British and colonial ships. Such an arrangement, if it could be earned out, would be a move of a. farreaching national character. In-addi-tion to the shipping bounties, the German State railways makei important concessions in favour of exports, especially with regard to such articles as are destined for shipment to distant ports. Under the bounty* system American, German, and-French sailing fleets are rapidly increasing by the yearly addition of- ships of large size, while' the British tonnage in. that class of vessels is a rapidly diminishing quantity. Shipping subsidies; under the circumstances, appear, therefore, to be a sine qua non of our maritime supremacy, and the nation'must be prepared, however repugnant to the British creed of Freetrade it may be, to fight; foreign shipping with the weapons it has to meet. Every maritime nation ■ except the British has adopted the system, and even Japan has made a commencement by guaranteeing the 'interest at 6 per cent-, on £153,124 for' a line of steamers to ply in the trade with China. As an initial step to place British shipping on a fair footing,.the severe impost represented in light dues should at once be r&noved and foreign vessels subjected to the same restrictions as British ships while trading iji any of the ports of the- Empire. While the action of the Commonwealth in that direction was resented by foreign shipowners, it is no doubt a step in the right direction tha.t might be copied by the Mother Country with advantage to her shipping interests.