FARMER-OWNED VESSELS.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 June 1917, Page 7

FARMER-OWNED VESSELS .

PRINCIPLE AFFIRMED.

THE FREIGHT EXACTIONS.

SOME SURPRISING FIGURES.

An address was delivered toy Mr. J. B. Eiciiards, of Stratford, at the Farmers' Conference, in tho New Plymouth Good Templar Hall on Thursday on the proposal that steps should be taken towards securing shipping for produce, to fee owned by the producers themselves. The president of the Agricultural Society occupied the chair and briefly introduced the speaker. Mr. Riohards said he would deal with the matter under two headings: (lj The advisability of the producers of New: Zealand establishing and controlling their own ocean transport; (2) The methods to be adopted in establishing the same.

■lt was obvious, he said, that our whole progress depended' on the production, preservation and distribution of those things which we are best able to such as butter, cheese, wool and meat. Within our own country the moans of distribution were in safe hands, the roads, the railways, wharves and harbors being more or less directly controlled by the people, but the ultimate market for the great bulk of our products was overseas,, and it was quite as necessary to secure safety, efficiency and economy in ocean transport as it was to secure those things within our own borders. Up to the present ocean transport had not been conducted as a national service, but as a business, the chief aim in that business being to make a profit. If that profit were limited by competition or other restraining influences the producer would probably be well served but there was no guarantee of safety, efficiency,-and economy. Shipowners might be expected to take advantage of lack of competition to increase their freights and decrease their standard of service, and under exceptional circumstances to evfen decline to send ships on any terms. Et> contended that ocean transport was our "life line" and should be in our own hand* whatever the cost.

The British shipowner had in the past encouraged the rivals of British manufacturers by granting | to the foreign manufacturers a preferential freight. In 11)13 a Royal Commission took evidence in New Zealand concerning trade and other ciroumlstances. of his Majesty's Dominions, and ho read extracts from this evidence showing that bottles from Germany, via ILondon, coming in the same bottoms as British bottles shipped from London were 22s 6d per toil for the foreign article as against 42s 6d per ton for the, British, it being considered that the preference given to British goods went into the pockets of the ■British ship owner. Further evidence of the same nature waß read and Mr. Richards asked: "Do you think such would have been the case if New Zealand producers had owned their own shipping?" Since the outbreak of war German-owned shipping which, by the way, had commenced trading to New Zealand, was shut up in various ports, and great demands were made on Bri-tish-owned shipping by the Admiralty. The result was a rapid and huge increase in freights. At the request of the Imperial Government our iwool, meat and cheese were commandeered and, consequently, we have not paid these excessive freights on our exports, but the increased freights dec 1 ,/ red by the ship-' ping companies at the beginning of last season clearly indicate haw we should be made to pay if v«> are content to remain at the mercy of shipowners when the opportunity ta bleed us arises. They have disclosed their hard as the following I'iguras will show:—

Greasy wool—P«-war rate %& per lb, total freight charge, £479.126; new rate 2%d, charge £1,820,681', increase £1,341,605. Cheese—Pre-war rate Jd, £201,54t; now %d, £302,320; increase £IOO,•773. B»tt,y>-2a fid box,, '£103,510; now 3a fid; £102,774; increase £54,258.

Mr. Richards quoted tha figures in respect of the other exports, showing the total freight as before the war at £094,91'3, as against £2,999,643 now,, or a total increase of £2,004,730. The articles dealt with represented a total export value of £16,022,604. All other exports amounted to £ 10,238,7<!3. It was reasonable to assume that freights were increased on the latter in like proportion. If so the total increase in our freight bill on exports would be about £3,250,000. The increased freight bill on imports was probably similar, which gives a grand total pf increased cost for the same service of £0,500,000. Would such increases hav* oceuwed if producers owned their own shipping? The facts lie had iubmittod should, he considered, suffice to 'convince them all that we should control our own shipping,'but there existed yet another factor which should have consideration. Most British shipping was under Trust control. There was too much evidence of this, and the greater a Trust grew the more dangerous it became to the primary producer, not only 'by reason of its own operations, .bat 8y reason of the inclination one trust iao to support another, and if a transport trust coalesced with a trust dealing in food the outlook for producers and consumers would be black. A SCHEME PROPOUNDED. • Concerning the methods which would enable the producers to establish their own shipping, Mr. Richards pointed out •that tbe interests governing British shipping were so powerful that ho believed nothing 3hort of complete organisation of the whole of the. producers of New Zealand would suffice, and in order to attain this he advocated that Parliamentary sanction ohould be obtained to make a levy on producers to provide the necessary capital, the details of such levy to be settled later. It could be. made on capital or on production. If the former, the 'basis might be on the capitul value of rural lands. Thus a levy of id in the £ would realise ££oo,000, and would not greatly inconvenience anyone. Contributors should have returned to them shares in the company to the amount of levy paid. Dividends on altars.! should 1 1» limited to 0 par cent, per- annum, cumulative and compound, and proper provision made for freights on exports. Imports to bs maintained relatively fair. The Chief objective should ba to ensure security, efficiency and Kouomy of transport and not dividents. AH classes in New Zealand .would- benefit because! freights on im-. port 3 would be affected equally' with freights on •exports. No other plan promised sufficient strength, force and staying power, but he believed that if Parliament sanction wore once obtained to make tho

levy the producers would hold the shipping problem in the hollow of their •hands. There were powerful forces in mw Zealand which would oppose tne ■project. Shrewd and influential business men, whoso interests were interwoven with those of the shipping ring, wHI say it was useless to oppose them, but the longer matters were allowed to drift, the more would bo the work that would ultimately have to bo undertaken.

rae alternative was a voluntary share •subscription, but he was convinced that sufficient force and power could not be gathered in that way to promise a reasonable chance of successfully combating the big trust now in control. He was also convinced that the present shipping interests would be delighted to see the producers attempt a voluntary subscription of share capital, knowing that such inothods must ultimately ensure the producers eonjtinuing under their control.

Mr. Wright said the shipping combine was an extremely powerful one and if they met with opposition might meet it by actually carrying freight free of charge. Mr. Richards said he quite agreed that the shipping combine was exceedingly powerful. But if they were to give free freights the producers' could afford to tie up their own ships and let them do it. On the motion of Mr. L. Hill, seconded Mr. J. Corbett, it was resolved: "That 'this meeting of farmers affirm the principle that the shipping for the transport of produce should be owned by the producers themselves."

On the motion of Mr. A. Mo'rton a •hearty vote of thanks was passed to •Mr. Kichardg for hia ablo address.