Solomons Is. Service.

Letter to the Editor, The editorial comment expressing astonishment on receiving a letter com plaining of a too-frequent steamer ser vice to the British Solomons finds a responsive echo from Circular Quay to Faisi.

The “growing feeling of protest against the frequency of the Sydney- Solomons steamship service” is growing only in the fevered imagination of the correspondent who perpetrated the ill considered, uninformed and unwar ranted letter that appeared in your issue of May. He apparently harbours the extraordinary delusion that Burns, Philp & Co. are conducting a one-way traffic. It is true that inward cargoes are comparatively small —they could not be otherwise with purchasing power

reduced to the barest minimum—but the fact that the “Mataram” invariably clears from Tulagi with holds full to the hatches, and usually a deck cargo as well, is ample testimony that the present service is no more than adequate for the business of the Group.

Further, the accelerated, service is not costing the Commonwealth or Protectorate Governments a penny more than when trips were less frequent. On the contrary, both countries benefit by the increased employment made available to the ship's crew, wharf labourers and the scores of others concerned in despatching and receiving cargo.

The statement by your correspondent that the service is more frequent now than in more prosperous times is inaccurate. For a considerable period the Solomons were served by two steamers giving an average of two trips every six weeks.

If anyone permits his time to be wasted and business dislocated by “in cessant dancing attendance on steamers” it is because he is fond of dancing (or of cold beer). Surely those who have an opportunity of connecting with the “Mataram” at intervals of 5½ weeks, but find that the hustle and bustle of doing so tends to induce a condition of nervous prostration, might curb their dancing proclivities and meet the steamer on alternate trips (as scores of planters and traders at small out-ports do of necessity) without pre cluding other members of the com munity from taking advantage of the most frequent service the shipowners can give.

I am, etc.,

Frequency.

Tulagi, B.S.I., 17/7/33.

A Planter's Views.

Sir, —Mr. L. P. Gill must surely be mistaken when he says “there is a growing feeling of protest” at the frequency of the mail steamers. There is, on the contrary, a general feeling of contentment with the present service.

Would your correspondent’s views be the same were he not a bachelor? Has the advent of a regular 2-monthly ser vice by the “Bremerhaven” anything to do with forming his opinion? Was he not one of the members of the Planters’ Association some years ago who “barracked” loudly for an im proved service?

On the argument of national economy, he must be aware that the mail subsidy covers a standard specified service for the postal requirements of the Group, below which the shipping company may not go. But they un doubtedly can, if it suits their purpose and interests, increase the efficiency of their services.

That beneficient monopoly Messrs.

Burns, Philp and Co., would not run more steamers than are necessary un less it paid them to do so. Granted that the inward cargoes are meagre, the outward cargoes are extremely satisfactory, and that, presumably is why we enjoy an enhanced service.

I am, etc.,

A. W. Musgrave.

Ranonga, B.S.I., 20/7/33.