PILLAGE OF CARGO.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20222, 7 October 1927, Page 6

PILLAGE OF CARGO.

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND TRADE. INCREASE IN LOSSES. (From Oub Own Correspondent.) LONDON, August 27. At various meetings of those interested in the Australian and New Zealand trades comment has been made on the eenou. losses sustained owing to the wholesale pillage of cargo from consignments to and from the ports of those countries. A statement just issued by a committee consisting of shipowners, merchants, chambers of commerce, and protection and indemnity associations shows the considerable extent of the losses sustained. Over a period of three years shipowners in the Australian trade have paid in claims £176,000. . , n i*i. On 110 steamers in respect ot wlncli figures are available claims on pillageable cargo, as distinct from cargo such as iron, tinplates, etc., from the United Kingdom, averaged 2s 2d per ton of cargo carried. Figures supplied by one line engaged in various trades showed that the in the Australian trade much exceeds that in other trades. These figures show the following amounts as paid per tern oi cargo -carried from the United Kingdom and Continent whether pillageable” cargo or not, at the ports mentioned:— . . __ , „ „ Singapore, Id per ton; Hongkong, «>.o; Shanghai, 2.5; Kobe. 0.8; Yokohama, 1.2; Adelaide, 1.7; Melbourne, 2.2; Sydney. 4.8; Brisbane, 15.9. SURPRISING FIGURES. One of the protection and indemnity associations reports that in three years 80 per cent, of the total round voyage cargo claims have arisen in the Australasian trade, leaving 20 per cent, to cover the claims in all other trades, the 80 per cent, being divided: 50 per cent, on Australian and 30 per cent, on New Zealand cargo,, in spite of the fact that only 50 vessels were engaged exclusively in the Australasian trade out of 742 yesseds entered in the association. One line reports that its losses bn Homeward cargo from Australia averaged 14.15 d per ton, as against 1.39 d per ton from the Far East. Seven importing firms in Sydney, who have supplied figures, give their total losses in 1925 as £5600, and in 1926 as £7OOO. . . The committee expresses the opinion that the success of shipowners in checking pilferage depends upon the co-operation of shippers, consignees, carriers ashore, dock authorities, and alt others engaged in the handling of cargo. BRISBANE’S BAD NAME. Further, it is suggested that the London Committee should remain in existence to consider information brought before it from time to time by shipowners, merchants, and others, and that _ committees should be set up in each principal port of Australia and New Zealand similarly constituted. This, suggestion has been adopted so far as London is concerned, and steps have been taken to give effect to it in Australia and New Zealand. In tho committee’s discussions it was brought to its notice that the police of Brisbane have no right of search in any privately-owned wharf; that efforts to get men employed in such wharves appointed special constables with power of search had failed, and that rectification of this state of affairs should be sought by all concerned. The committee states that while figures on which to base’ its reports have been provided by the shipping linos, it is difficult to assess the total losses, as no figures have been obtained from underwriters, who insure such risks, and a proportion of the losses are borne by merchants, not covered by insurance, who discover pillage when it is too late to claim on the ship. On the facts evolved recommendations are being circulated to tho various bodies Interested with a view to checking what is undoubtedly a large and growing evil. VARYING UNDERWRITING EXPERIENCE. The Times says the publication of tho report was welcomed in the London insurance market where underwriters have for many years paid large amounts in claims for losses through this cause. Unlike the shipowners, they do not appear to have formed estimates of the total amount of these claims, although it is generally held that they would be larger than the sums paid by the shipping lines. The merchants have often looked to the underwriters first for recovery of losses, and only in certain cases would the latter have been able to recover from the shipping companies. In the circumstances it seems at first curious that the underwriters were not directly represented on the committee. Probably the explanation is that, unlike tho shippers, shipowners, and consignees, they themselves do not handle the goods. Nevertheless, when pilferage was rife in many trades a few years ago, the measures they adopted through modification of tho terms of insurance were known to have been very effective in reducing the extent of the evil. Ono significant experience is that the amount of the claims varies widely in the different accounts, although these may relate to the same descriptions of business. It might be interesting to try to discover how it is that one account should be much more fortunate than another, and whether tho variations depend on such questions as tho form of packing, the methods of sending the goods to the ship, tho type of vessel in which they aro despatched, and tho arrangements for taking charge of tho merchandise nt tho ports of destination.