OCEAN FREIGHTS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1810, 17 July 1906, Page 3

OCEAN FREIGHTS.

(To the Editor Gisborne Times.)

Sir,— Upon looking over tbs Icoai papem since my return from South, I notice in your issue of the 7th mat. you publish a manifesto from the Cbairmau of Directors of the London Boerd of the New Zealand Shipping Company npoc this question. You also follow it up with an applauding - leading nrtiolo, in which you state that after tbo dignified silence of tho companies attacked it is incisive, and replies effoctively to every point raised, etc. . . . I do not propose to reply to your remarks nor to tbo sentimental appeal from the Now Zealand Shipping Company, except to soy that this question is now resolved into a pure matter cf business, and sentiment plays no part in it, and you will hays a hard task to perform to make the farmers of this distriot believe that the shipping company is run on philanthropic lines more for our benefit as exporters than their own as a mooey-makiDg concern. However, since the New Zeeland Shipping Company has broken its dignified silenoe and come out in print, I think it would bo instructive to your readers if you would answer the following questions :

1. Is is not a faot that until a few months back the New Zealand Shipping Company, the Tyser Company, and the 1 Shaw-Savill Company were under a heavy bond, for a number of years past, with , esoh other not to out or rednao freights ? 2. Tho manifesto tells ua that only small dividends have been paid in the past to shareholders; but would you mind telling us what proportion of profits has < baen used in building new ships, so that 1 we will be in a better position to judge the poverty of tho shipping companies ? 3. Considering that New Zealand exports about four millions of sheop par annum to Australia’s ona to London, why has the Now Zealand Seipping Company with the other two companies charged us for years past just SO per cent, (on summer rates) more freight than has been, paid by our Australian neighbors for' the freight on their moat, considering tho distance is practically the same ? 4. Why did tho abovo shipping combination charge us for summer rates up to tho year 1904-05 twelve-sixteenths of a penny per lb, beef leu-sixteenths, and lamb thirteen-sixtonnths, then directly that tho new Federal line comes on tho aoono unfettered by any shipping combination, and oflors to carry our produce direct to London, tho old shipping combination reduces its freights for mutton to six-sixteenths, beef five-sixteenths, and lamb eoycn-sixtotmhs (which e.re a little belcw Australian rates), or in other worda making r, total drop in their charges of esictlv 50 p:r cons, lose iptr mutton and beef, and sis eixtsr-ntba io.w for iamb ? There aro pibor quetmous ;bat ln'gnt be ark‘,d regarding thß old shippiug combination's heavy freight- eUwgeii »•* - butter iu ilia «**»' _ .mol and churn*- • , wa y as the meat

.. - , out I will bo content if yon will have the abovo four questions answered through your columns. I ask these q;:os fcions in no idle epirit, but- becau-e th*y have weighed with mo in coming to a conclusion in the matter. Until they are satisfactorily answered, I consider that tbo farmers, rs the main exporters of this colony, huvo a clnry, so far as possible, so support sbu now Federal lino, so as to got is established independently iu our London trade. Wo do not want any cus-tbroai competition introduced; but W c want, and will obtain, fair treatment in our freight charges, which wo hayo not obtained in tho pac,t- To my mind tho new Federal lino will act as a constable in thi3 respect, and tho result 3 provo this, for while ciroumstanoos entitle us to bo charged at least tho same rats 3 as Australia pays, we havo never enjoyed those rates until tho Fadoral Imo came into our trado, and they aro at once granted us, although our right to claim Australian rates has boon ridiculed from time to Sims by those who aro supposed to know.—l am, eta.,

-0,-7 'nt, Wl DOUGLAS LYSNAR. 18/7/00,