WILD WORDS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 833, 3 June 1910, Page 6

WILD WORDS.

ABOUT THE MAILS CONTROVERSYLETTER FROM AUCKLAND. EARLY HOPES RUDELY SHATTERED The correspondence between the presidents of the Chambers of Commerce at Auckland and Wellington on the subject of mail services seems to have reached something like a climax in the letters which are given below. Mr. H. C. Tewsley, president of tho Wellington Chamber, has received the following from the president of the Auckland Chamber:— "Dear Sir, —I am in receipt of your letter of 2oth inst., from which I observe that, while you express yourself as not hostile to the proposed Vancouver service, you state your chamber is opposed to it upon the grounds of 'lavish expenditure'; this does not agree with your actions at the last conference of tho Chambers of Commerce or the Dominion, where your acoredited ' representatives anticipated with delight the consummation of a Vancouver service—this when you thought Wellington was going to be the port, of call. It is obvious that, when such support was voiced, you were enjoying an inflated prosperity, and have since suffered a set-back, from the results of which you proceed to infer thy.t the effect is general throughout the Dominion, which, happily, is. not the case. "The simile is—you set about, as it were, to reduce expenses by dispensing with the indispensable telephone (Vancouver iervict'), instead of realising that the rental of the telephone was not the cause of your set-back, but lavish expenditure, as stated by you. "We have pleasure in stating that Ave cannot, agree with you that 'lavish expenditure of a private or public • character lias been rampant here; just the contrary, for our district has grown slowly and steadily, until to-day it is the, most pros]K*rous of the Dominion. ; "We, therefore, now recognise that an obsolete mail service is hampering our progress and that of the Dominion, generally. Is it not. on your part jealousy and selfishness (which are to be deprecated) to work against the proposed Vancouver service (particularly in view of your former attitude) simply because you alone, through no fault of ours) have had a sot-back? "Wo raised no objections to the Government acquiring the M-anawatu line, which .has benefited your city' and dis- : trict, and not ours. Further, having the | success of the North Island at heart, we I aTe just as anxious as you are for the | East Coast railway through via Napier to Auckland, but not to terminate at; Gisborne for Wellington alone to enjoy that trade. "You state that your chamber knew nothing about the Tahiti service until the contract was an accomplished faot.' If your chamber was slumbering, it is evident from the press telegrams that were pnssing to ana fro that the public were not; this admission alone indicates but too clearly a grave lack of that alertness one would have expeoted from you. 'An obsolete service may suit your requirements, but it \viLl not do for us. Your figures are yo misleading that it would bo a waste of limo to enter into a controversy over them. "In conclusion, you Inay. rest assured that we will not slacken in our agitation to secure an up-to-date Vancouver service, and after it has been secured for tho benefit of the whole of the Dominion (the representatives of which, including your own, spoke with one voice for it) we do hope that you will admit that its cos f was money well spent. The direct line scheme suggested by you was tried years ago and abandoned; even tho PostmasterGeneral has again informed you that the saving of from four to six days does not warrant the heavy subsidy which would be required, and yet you say that you are opposed to 'lavish expenditure/ "It is evident, while you are trying to give others advice, based on your pas-t recklessness, that the t PostmasterGeneral thinks this epidemic is,not yet eradicated from your city and district. "I have written thus plainly, ;ts it is obvious that our early hopes—based on the attitude of your accredited representatives at the late conference—viz., that wo would find you in accord with us upon and contributing towards the consummation of the improved Vancouver service, are rudely shattered. It would seem that , we, with the support of the other centres in. tho Dominion, and without yours, must upon this progressive question work out our own salvation. "I am, "Yours faithfully, "J. H. GUNSON, "President Auckland Chamber of Commerce." MR. TEWSLEY'S REPLY. BRIEF BUT POINTED. To the above letter Mr. Tewsley has sent the following reply:— "J. H. Gunson, Esq., Auckland. "Your.letter of the 27th instant which is duly to hand is, I think, as intemperate an epistle as I have ever received. , It is full of distortions, misrepresentations, charges, incivilities and insinuations. I feci that unless a correspondence can be carried on in terms of reason, fairness, and courtesy, it had better be dropped. I have therefore nothing further, to add.-H. C. TEWSLEY." AN INTERVIEW. WHY THE FIGURES WERE "MISLEADING." Invited by a Dominion reporter to deal with one or two of Mr. Gunson's statements, Mr. Tewsley suid tho general position was that the present Suez service was regular, could be absolutely depended upon, was accomplished in a reasonable time, and—a point ,to bo emphasised—it was a weekly service. The subsidy paid by the New Zealand Government was ,£IO,OOO a year, and against this Mr. Gunson was asking the Government to arrange for a three-weekly service with a subsidy of £34,100 to be paid by tho Government. The additional cost of transport would be about the same in each case. The three-weekly Vancouver service could not efficiently perform the three functions mentioned by Mr. Gun- i son, because the necessary rapidity of ' a mail service would interfere witlusuit- ! able arrangement for cargo and tourists. : New Zealand already had the Suez and Tahiti mail services, and the new service with tho east coast of Canada, in which the first steamer was timed to leave Montreal on* May 14, would be of more use for cargo than any Vancouver connection. The Auckland proposal would therefore : mean paying a large additional subsidy ! for the sake of a tourist traffic which I would not even then be well catered for. "The Council of our Chamber," continued" Mr. Tewsley, "would not have taken up this controversy at all, had it not appeared that there' was a danger of losing the Suez service. Mr.'Gunson's first-published letter to Sir Joseph Ward contained an attack on the Suez service, | ami that is why we entered the lists! I There is no inconsistency between the I attitude of our delegates at the conferI ence and the present attitude of our I council. I "The figures of which Mr. Gunson so j airily disposes as too misleading to be I wdrth discussing related to two points j t'l) the cost of the respective services via Suez and via Vancouver, and (2) the time occupied by the Suez service and the ser- 1 vice via Tahiti respectively. On the first 1 point, Mr. Gunson, in writing to Sir Joseph Ward, had stated that tho suggested subsidy for the desired new service via Vancouver, £31.100, was about tho same as the cost of the present service via Suez. Air. Gunson thus com- ! pared the bare subsidy in the one case j <£34,100, with the subsidy, say, £10,000 ' plus transport expenses across Austrai lia, from Australia to Europe and across ! Kuropo to London. It was pointed out to him that the true comparison would, of course, be tho bare subsidy in each ease, or the subsidy plus further transport charges in each case. Does he consider this to be misleading?

"My figures as to the time of transit on. the hvo routes wero obtained from official sources, and their correctness is unquestionable.. Mr. Gunson spoke of the Suez route as a 10-days' service, and the Tahiti route as taking *10 to 15 days. It was pointed out to him that the usual time for the Suez mail to reach London is 35 to 37 days, and that the time by the Tahiti route was 33 to 37 days, say, an average of 35 days, not 40 to 45. On only one occasion did it exceed 37 days uud then, through an interruption of overland railway traflic, the time was increased to 40 days. These figures do not suit Mr. Gunson's argument, and are therefore misleading. "The other parts of his letter," added Mr. Tewsley "cau be passed over with silent contempt." WELLINGTON "FOR A CHANGE."

AUCKLAND'S "TOUCH OF HYSTERIA/' The question of the Vancouver mail service coming to Auckland or Wellington was referred to at the 'annual meeting of the New Zealand Shopkeepers' Association yesterday by Mr. H. H. Seaton, the retiring president. Mr. Seaton said that if the Governmtnt decided to grant a subsidy for an American mail there was no reason why "Wellington should not make itself heard for a change. "Auckland, of late years/' said Mr. Seaton, "seemed to have ' developed a little touch of hysteria, and helped by a rather yellow press there is no doubt they think New Zealand is against them, and they apparently are against New Zealand. We have no controversies on any subject with Christchurch or Dunedin, but there seems to be a very bitter feeling towards Wellington among a certain section of the Auckland community." Undoubtedly Wellington was the best port for distributing mail matter both north and south, and it was as nerir the terminal ports as Auckland. There wasno reason why the association, with the Chamber of Commerce, the Industrial Association, and other bodies, should not make representations to the Government and endeavour, if it was decided that the Vancouver boats should call at New Zealand ports, to bccure that Wellington should bo the port of call. Auckland had of late years got all its own way simply through agitation, and there was no reason why representations should not be made by Wellington that would further the interests of this city and of the Dominion as a whole. When a mail came first to Auckland it was absurd to think of the time it took to get to Christchurch and Dunedin, whereas Wellington was within 21 hours of-'either Dunedin or Auckland.