SHIPPING RIVALRY.

Taihape Daily Times, 11 April 1919, Page 6

SHIPPING RIVALRY.

THE AUSTRALIAN LINE.

OPPOSITION IN ENGLAND.

LONDON, Macrh 27

A leading member of the Snipping Conference, commenting on a letter in The TiVes from Mr. "Larkin, general manage- of the Commonwealth line of ships, states that he does not expect a freight Avar. In the event of the Government later attempting ratecutting, the conference would promptly consider the reprisals. Also there was a possibility that the Government would complicate the position by offering seamen higher wages, owing to the line's immunity from the payment of dividends and excess profits. | Replving to Mr. Laridn, the ship-! ping correspondent of The Times , opposes the present development, be- | cause he always thought that Mr. Hughes's bold, dramatic coup of 1916, in which the Imperial Government was equally responsible, was against the best interests of the Empire.

The Times supported the far-seeing owners who always advocated centralised war control. This plan was subsequently carried out, and materially contributed to victory, but unhappily it was only partially practised.

In the summer of 1916, Mr. Hughes heing nnable to get satisfaction from the British departments (regarding the disposal of the Australian wheat crop, purchased 15 ships, dissipating tho control which tb.3 subsequent Ministry of Shipping would have prevented, and advising the British Goveminent to finance the Australian crop if it decided that the ship? would he better employed than in making voyages to Australia. If all the Dominions had taken the control of shipping into then- cwn lands how could transmit have been provided for men and foodstuffs from North America.

The corerspondeut concludes by stating that there is no question of denying Australian ships vd;ss to the ports of the United Kingdom, instancing the Bulla, which was scheduled to carry a large amount of Government cargo.

It was only fair, however, that the mew line should put itself on a parity with others, and submit to British laws. Yt't it claimed immunity from the shipping laws of this or any other country. On the other hand, the Conference's ships were subject to both British and Australian laws, and therefore the conditions were unequal.