FREIGHT PROBLEMS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2005, 12 March 1914, Page 5

FREIGHT PROBLEMS.

SCANDAL OP OiSCRIMINATJON.

DOMINIONS COMMISSION'S VIEWS. Tho Dominions Commission, in their interim report, draw emphatic attention to evidence which they received with regard to .freight discrimination against British shippers in tho New Zealand trade. The suggestion was that the prevailing i&to. of freight charged from London by the leadiug lines of steamers is higher than that charged by them and their correspond* Wits at tho sivme tiia<B in Hamburg and other German ports. In saine- cases it, was stated that tiles goods from Hamhurg were brought to London, and transhipped there to vessels sailing for New Zealand, tho total through rate on the goods being less than that charged by tho samtt vessel on similar goods brought from London to the same New Zealand port. "The net effect of this practice," the c&mmisstoncrs state, "has been and must bo to facilitate tire eompctitimi of German manufactures with British in New Zealand, unduly to handicap British ni.inuf.iciuros, and to destroy at least to the extent of tho difference in frehihts the advantage intended by Now Zealand to be'given by means of preference to tho British ma.nni'acturer,"

Thus tho Hvitisli Classification for bottles was 30s. per ton, the Continental classiii-cfttio-n boltis; 235, Gel..; China-ware 3?s. fid. ami Kte. 6d. res-nee* lively; cutlery. 625. Oil. and 395,; similar figures being given for other articles. The Kißimission find that this state of affairs 1 lias been in existence for at least tun years. The explanation given -on tho subject by one of the companies tho cnmniissiW regard as "thoroughly unsatisfactory','' and they regret that, in view of the grave »at\iro of tiro charges Watfe, the companies concerned liftvo not doomed it expedient to give evidence. "It appears to its/' they add, "oil the Information before us that tlio practice runs directly counter to the-patriotic-ami Imperial intentions of the Ne* Zealand Legislature, and nets detrimentally anil unfairly to British trade."

tho Dominians Go : ftn»fesion.also stato that their attention was called iu the United Kingdom to cases in which- bills of lading wore issued in Australia m lfispoct of s-bip'mciits (particularly of wool) which were not dispatched on board the vessels specified. It was suggested that the practice, struck at the I negotiability of the bill of hiding, and i that there 'might oven be. coflusioa in I connection with it between shippers and I steaniAiß ■ "We have made Inquiries .jiito tile matter both in Ajisi'fa»l -Ka and New Zealand," t-hc'Gomnnssioii'- j c'fs stato, ."and arc satisfied that s«h j cases aro of rate occurrence) that there in no .want of good faith, aftd that Matters aro ad justed..satisfaetari'ly between . tho -svool-bwkci'Sj tho ship-owners, and th«-consignees." ; Tho case is difficult, however, tvpi regard to outward bills of lading. fho ■ ! opinion of witnesses before tiro commission in Australia, was that the outward ■ bills of lading now in use are- out of j ditto- and unduly complicated, that they iaek uniformity, and are- unshily favourable to .shipowners as opposed to their, customfits. It mas further stated-.that ■legislation both in Australia and Canada is more fa;VQUrahlo to shippers aiid consignees titan is tho case irt the. Uiritel Kingdom, and it was iirc&l tliat tho law in force Iji tlio Uiiite.d ECfesdom should bo brougllt intft Mile with the ■Comiiiou-ffealt-h "and Canadian nwaMiieS-. Tlio j Commissioners content ilieiftselves ivitli i rccordhig this opinion without niakilig | any reeommendatiijii' at- present om the i s-nbject. ]