RATIONING IN BRITAIN

Southland Times, Issue 23987, 30 November 1939, Page 5

RATIONING IN BRITAIN

Scheme For Butter And Bacon,

INTRODUCTION ON JANUARY 8

(United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright) (Received November 29, 11.30 p.m.) LONDON, November 29.

The Minister of Food (Mr W. S. Morrison) announced in the House of Commons that the rationing scheme for butter and bacon would be introduced on January 8. There would be four ounces a week of each commodity for every consumer. Sugar was not included in the rationing scheme, but consumers were asked to register and restrict their purchases to 11b a head a week.

Customers in restaurants will be allowed one-sixth of an ounce of butter a meal without coupons. Cooked bacon and ham will be servable only on surrender of coupons.

RESTRICTION OF NAZI COMMERCE ORDERINCOUNCIL PUBLISHED INDISCRIMINATE SINKINGS BY . GERMANS (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, November 29. An Order-in-Council published today authorizes the restriction of German commerce as st reprisal for German breaches of international law. The Order recites in a preamble the fact of numerous cases of the sinking of British, Allied and neutral merchant vessels, thus violating the Submarine Protocol, 1936, to which Germany is a party, and that “such ships also have been sunk by mines laid by the German forces indiscriminately and without notification, in contravention of the obligations of humanity and the provisions of the Hague Convention, to which Germany is a party.” “Such sinkings/’ the Order continues, “have been without regard to the nationality or destination of vessels or to the ownership or destination of cargoes, and have resulted in a grave loss of British, Allied and neutral non-com-batant life. Whereas, it is manifest that the German Government has deliberately embarked on a policy of endeavouring to destroy all seaborne trade between Allied and other countries by the ruthless use of the forces at its disposal, contrary to the laws and customs of war, the rgihts of neutrals and the obligations of humanity; and whereas this action on the part of the German Government gives his Majesty unquestionable right of retaliation.” The Order then provides that: (1) Every merchant vessel sailed after December 4, 1939, from an enemy port., including a port under enemy occupation or control,_ may be required to discharge in a British or Allied port any goods loaded at such port. (2) Every merchant vessel sailing from any other port after December 4 and carrying goods which are of enemy origin or enemy property may be required to discharge such goods in a British or Allied port.

“These prohibited goods discharged under order are to be placed in the custody of the Prize Court Marshal, and, unless the Court orders their requisitioning, shall be detained or sold as the Court directs and the proceeds paid into Court. On the conclusion of peace, the proceeds of any goods sold and any goods detained unsold shall be dealt with as the Court considers just, unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the goods had become neutral property before November 27, 1939; or there may be such payment or release with the consent of the proper officer of the Crown.” According to an explanatory statement issued by the Ministry of Economic Warfare, requests to the Crown’s officer will be considered only if the goods are neutral-owned and either were on a vessel clearing from its last neutral departure port before December 11, 1939, or, if the contract under which the goods ordered was entered into before November 27, 1939, and the terms obliged the purchaser to take delivery of the goods on or before shipment and provided the purchaser has paid for the goods before shipment and the goods were on the vessel which cleared its last neutral departure port before January 1, 1940. The Order itself also provides that the law and practice in prize shall be followed as far as applicable in cases arising under the Order. NO PROTEST BY UKA. SOME FINANCIAL LOSS EXPECTED (Received November 29, 8.30 p.m.) WASHINGTON, November 29. Senator Key Pittman, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed the opinion that while the United States would suffer some financial loss because of the blockade of German exports, she would not participate in the other neutral States’ protests. “We will certainly not become involved in this controversy, which is a minor sacrifice compared with the major sacrifice of the Neutrality Act,” he said. GOODS SHIPPED TO NEUTRALS BUYERS’ NAMES MUST BE SPECIFIED (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 29. In this week’s Gazette a notice to traders by the British Ministry of Economic Warfare, published in Great Britain, is quoted. The notice states that all goods covered by the United Kingdom contraband list, which is in force in New Zealand, shipped on or after November 20, 1939, to neutral countries in Europe and consigned “to order” or to forwarding agents without specifying the names of the buyers will be liable to seizure by the Contraband Committee. This notice does not affect bills of lading made out “to order,” to a banking or accepting house and bearing the inscription “notify buyer Messrs—” which are regarded as equivalent to a bill made out to a named consignee, it being understood that the person to be notified would not be a forwarding agent.