THE GOLDEN RULE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLII, Issue 20541, 6 October 1936, Page 12

THE GOLDEN RULE

APPLICATION TO SHIPPING DISABILITIES OF BRITISH LINES By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, October 5 The Congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire commenced the business sessions to-day. The first subject was subsidies to shipping, several resolutions being embodied in one to the effect that while reaffirming adherence to the principle of free, unrestricted, and unsubsidised ocean transport services, it recommends to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Dominions that trade facilities to shipping trading between Empire ports should only be granted to the shipping of those countries giving similar facilities to Empire shipping, and that they should, whether by subsidy or otherwise, afford such assistance as to enable the British Mercantile Marine to remain, as in the past, one of the greatest bulwarks of the Empire, whether in peace or war. Tire mover was Mr Spencer Watts (Sydney), who emphasised that what they wanted to get was similar treatment to that meted out to others, in other words, the application of the golden rule. They would prefer to have no discrimination against them. The seconder was Mr Seaman (Auck-

land), who dealt particularly with the disabilities being suffered by British shipping in the Pacific, through America’s subsidies, and between ports. The resolution was supported by the Australian and New Zealand delegates. Sir Thomas Wilford put forth a suggestion that Britain, the world’s biggest purchaser, should use her purchasing power to secure equality to shipping. She had the power if she had the will. The resolution was carried with one dissentient.

Sir Thomas Wilford then moved a resolution urging that all Governments concerned should take early action in the interests of British trade in the Pacific to preserve this link in the AU Red shipping route. Mr Lunn (Auckland), seconded the motion.

During the discussion, Sir Montague Burton said if there were a resolution for a London conference suggested by Mr Wigglesworth, he would support it.

Mr Emlyn Jones (Cardiff) moved an amendment that the whole question of British shipping in the Pacific be deferred until a conference has been arranged between the countries concerned, including the' United States. Objection was raised there and there was no saying where this may lead to. The amendment was lost and the resolution carried.

The conference proceeded to deal with inter-imperial trade amalgamation, resolutions being moved by Mr Granville Gibson (London), who while welcoming and approving the Ottawa

agreements, maintained and quoted cases to show that they were working to the disadvantage of England, and must be reviewed. In that review, he insisted, business interests must be represented, and not pushed aside as they were when the agreements were made but they could not wait for readjustments in all cases, and the Governments of the Empire should consider certain cases immediately. The resolution submitted that the ideal to which the policy of Imperial economic co-operation should be directed is that each partner should extend to the others all the advantages that can be offered at a given moment, without detriment to the vital requirements of its domestic situation. Mr Jones (Cardiff, Swansea and South Wales) expressed a wish that the problem was as simple as the supporters of the resolution made it appear. He made a point that there was grave danger by retaliation in the Pacific. They might drive the American nation into competition with shipowners in other parts of the world. Britain had been lending money cheaply abroad to build ships not required, and that brought its own nemesis in the end. What they should aim at was increased trade among British peoples. Mr Gibson (Leeds), strongly opposed this view. He thought Mr Jones had overlooked their reaffirmation in the resolution of freedom in ocean transport. Mr Gibson agreed with Sir Thomas Wilford that British shipping in the Pacific must be maintained.

Mr Paxton (Sydney), gave the history of the Vancouver and San Francisco services, and made a point that the main trouble was the suitability of the competing ships for the passenger trade. He hoped the resolution would be carried unanimously, just as worded. Mr Wigglesworth (London), suggested that a conference should be held in London. The British Market Mr Russell (Sydney) in seconding the motion, made out a case for the primary produce of the Dominions being given unlimited entry to Britain. This was part of the resolution moved by Mr Granville Gibson, who had explained, however, that he had not arrived when the resolutions were grouped. He was opposed to this part and moved the resolution with that reservation. The proposal was utterly opposed to a British Government's policy as enunciated by the Minister of Agriculture. Sir Albert Atkey (Britain) moved the deletion of the paragraph adding to the strong reasons given by Mr Gibson further reasons, among which was Britain’s foreign loans and trade interests. He explained bluntly that the Dominions themselves benefited, as it were, once removed from Britain's trade with foreign countries, because Britain used the Dominion’s products in such trading. Mr Corke (Sydney) suggested an alteration, which was accepted, making the provision read: “Minimising so far as possible the imposition of restrictions on the importation into the United Kingdom of Dominion primary products.” This cut out the suggestion of the elimination of restrictions and also the reference to foreign countries. Mr Gibson intimated his glad acceptance of this clause, saying he appreciated the Australian’s generosity. Bilateral Agreements

The congress proceeded to deal with the resolution with the clause so amended. The resolution, while wholeheartedly supporting the principles of economic co-operation underlying the Ottawa agreements, set forth certain courses to be urged on His Majesty’s Governments in giving practical effect to that principle. These included agreements negotiated bilaterally rather than through another Imperial economic conference, such bilateral agreements to ensure specific tariff treatment to a selected list of commodities rather than rely for advantage to the contracting parties on the application of vague general principles. Other provisions included ensuring to the United Kingdom the carrying out of a reasonable agricultural policy and affording the Dominions an opportunity to develop to a reasonable extent their secondary industries and generally bringing about closer co-operation in Empire trade. A great variance of view has revealed in the long debate, and much of the afternoon was spent listening to a variety of trade figures, both general

and particular, as to the existing position between Britain and the various parts of the Empire and the world. Much of the discussion also centred on secondary Industries, especially as regards Australia. Mr Bury (Newcastle, N.S.W.) expressed the view that the agricultural policy of Britain was not only not in the interests of Britain herself but one of the most disruptive forces in the Empire. The resolution was carried with two dissentients.

A resolution was carried strongly recommending the Government’s of Britain and the Dominions that at the time of reviewing the Ottawa trade agreements they should invite the cooperation of expert advisers, who should be representative of primary and secondary industries and Chambers of Commerce. Another resolution was carried strongly advocating an interchange of Ministerial visits before bilateral agreements which had been suggested were concluded.