The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1914 FREIGHTS AND SHIPPING.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 282, 26 November 1914, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1914 FREIGHTS AND SHIPPING.

At the last meeting of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce reference was; made to the decision of the. shipping companies to collect .freight on all cargo leaving New Zealand. Hitherto Iho shipping companies have said nothing other than by circular issued early in the month, intimating to agents that this intention was to be earned out. To those unconnected with shipping, the Wellington Post con'sideis it may be" necessary to explain that freight-earnings of ( a ship at rink, no less than the ship herself and her cargo, being exposed to the risks of loss through perils of the seas and the King's enemies, are insurable, and goes on to point out that the ordinary insurance rates on ships' hulls and on ships' cargoes have not only been substantially increased, but it has been found very necessary to insure against war risks also. Freight-earnings are in the same position. The shipowner would still be a heavy loser if a vessel were sunk or captured by the enemy to the extent of the freight, at risk or payable on arrival, on that vessel, irrespective of any insurance that would have been effected upon the whole or partial value of her hull. The Wellington paper cites the case of the Kaipara, and assuming that the hull and cargo of that vessel were fully covered, not only against the ordinary risks of the sea and fire and war. and yet her unpaid freight was uninsured, her owners would have sustained a very heavy loss in the freights earnings alone. It is to protect themselves against this loss that the companies trading to and from London and New Zealand claim that they are now collecting freight on all cargo exported from this country to the United Kingdom, instead of collecting it on the arrival of the cargo at its destination. The reason for this course being taken was set out in a circular issued by a shipping company, stating that "owing to shipping companies not being able to cover war risk or freight it has been decided by the companies that all freight must bo paid at the port of shipment." It is as well to note that freights on New Zealand butter and cheese and meat are and have always been prepaid. Further, according to the statement of a shipping manager, freights have for some time past been prepaid in Australia. It was learned that the prepayment of; freight on all cargo from New Zealand is not a paying' proposition for the shipping company, inasmuch as the money has to lie remitted, taking thirty-seven days by mail, and is usually drawn at sixty days sight and. therefore, in addition to the cost of transmission is lying idle for over three months. So far as the New Zealand rates for meat, for instance, It |

are concerned, they are below those ruling in Australia and the River Plate. In the New Zealand trade the

rates on mutton are 9-16 d per pound less 7£ per cent., whereas the Imperial Government has fixed the rate 1 to be charged on mutton from Buenos Aires to the United Kingdom at |d per pound—a voyage of less than half the distance, or eighteen days, than that from New Zealand to London.! There was another point to be considered—and that was made by a different authority. Australia has any amount of freight to offer, and owners in a position to do so can divert their tonnage from New Zealand to Australia, and utilise it there to greater advantage if need be. The Post also mentions another matter that had caused some irritation to consignees importing goods from the Continent, viz., the collection here of freight paid—in other words, a collection of double freight. This matter has also been discussed by the Central Chamber of Commerce. The answer of the shipping companies is that, in order to secure themselves against loss, they have collected freight in New Zealand upon merchandise allegedly freightrpaid, because in some instances there was no evidence that the freight had been so prepaid. Since the war no goods have come from Germany to New Zealand, but just before the war German cargo for this country was sent for shipment through London, and on some of that cargo, although described in the bill of lading as "freight to be paid," the freight had not been paid in Germany. Wherever evidence has since come'to hand that the freight on such cargo has been actually paid to the shipping companies by the Continental shipper and the amount has been collected from the New Zealand consignees, then Lhe money so collected has been refunded. Moreover, in the Continental bills ot lading it is provided that: "Jf freight is not (so) paid at the port of shipment, shall on demand be paid by the consignee at port of discharge, in which case freight shall bo calculated and paid at the colony rate." This colony .rate is 5s per ton extra; but it has not been collected in the cases above referred to. The shipping companies. it is contended, were not only acting within their rights in this matter, but upon the equity of the case. The companies had no desire whatever to profit by the peculiar state 'if affairs which the war had created, but to do more than take such self-protective measures as the circumstances necessitated. ~ .