REMOVAL FEES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1685, 27 February 1913, Page 8

REMOVAL FEES.

HARBOUR BOARD CHARGES, . "A HEAVY LIFT." CASE OF THE TURAKINA. When tlio New Zealand Shipping Company's steamer Turakina was discharging cargo in Wellington recently, fli'3 wns> berthed at Queen'slWharf. Her cargo included oue particular package weighing 18 tons. For the purpose of unloading this, t:ho liner was removed to the Hail--way Wharf, and when tlio weighty articlo was oul; of tlio hold she was oilco more berthed at Queen's Wharf to convplfto discharge of her Wellington cargo, in due course tlio Shipping Company was debited, as for one removal, .£22 Bs. 5d., plus towage i:il. Somo correspondence on the matter passed between Mr. N. Galbraith, loca.l manager for tlio company, aiid tlio secretary of the Harbour Uoard, mid the file wan among the correspondence placed before members of tho uoard lust night. . Mr. W. D.llildrcth asked that the letters should bo read; The chairman (Sir. E. Fletcher) said lie had intended to mention tlio matter to-tho meeting, and Mr. Hildrcth's question supplied an opportunity. Mr. -.Fletcher explained what had actually taken .plaeo in 'connection witb the removal, and said that under the regulations two removals might liave been charged for, but only one was/ actually taken into account. Mr. Galbrait'h had written a letter asking for remission of these charges, on tlio ground that the' removal was ior tlio board's convenience, lie (Mr; Fletehei-) had entirely disagreed lfith any such remission, but had been outvoted by other "members of the Wharves and Accounts Committee, and a resolution was carried remitting tlio fees. Ho had already given notice of ('motion to rescind. the resolution at tho next committee-meeting!. ■, While proceeding to Rive liis view of the matter, Mr. Fletcher was interrupted. Mr. C. W. Jones raised a point of order that the discussion was outside Mr. Ilildreth's request, that tlie\lettcrs bo read. Mr. Fletcher' said his only reason for explaining it; was to let members know how" matters stood. • Mi'i Jones considered the chairman had not put the matter fairly before the board. Mr. Fletcher'said lie would not ask Mr., Jones how ho was to lay the matter before the board.At this stage the secretary read the correspondence. Mr. Galbraith's letter asked for the remission of tho fees on the ground that the removal was really for the convenience -of the Harbou? Board' ■ and pointed out that the by-laws left tho matter to the discretion of the harbourmaster. ; Ho stated that he had given, the harbourmaster' notice that the cargo included this package, which the ship could have landed at Queen's Wharf with its own gear., Tho charge for removal was a serious coiit—in this case against tho company—but'in future similar cases it might affect tlio port, for it would mean that companies would have to charge somothing like JMO extra for freight on packages of Euch a description. Tho harbourmaster's report to the board on tho matter stated that tho charge was in accordance with practice. Other vessels liad been similarly treated and another of the New Zealand Shipping Company's. \ steamers had,'on a previous occasion, ten' . charged fees for a removal of a similar i' nature. ' ..Mr. Fletcher, asked if there jrere-.any. 1 questions. j ; Mr. M. Cohen said the ' whole thing 1 bristled with questions. There was the. ; question as to how the committee' came to' deal with tho fees, and as to haw the i .harbourmaster could adjudicate on the 1 matter. , - ' v -During the course of discussion on tho "matter, Mr,; Hildretji.-asked if,, the chairs. man|s rescinding motion w;oiild i:anioj-Jie-fore the board. '*'■• ! "" • ~ Mr. Fletcher replied that it wpuld come, y bgfpW the cojnmittce-on' Marbh 'Hi',- but lie'-, j. jtapqjfcktlic.i result ,to tholwardsijps I- he considered the" question; Was; oiio"of l' policy affecting the icvcmis of the .board. i He went on to say tliht iu' every. port in tlie-world—and ho had bsen in.,a few— I they ,-luid special places for discharging speciaKgoods, and ships were. diTectcd to ; go to those places at their own. expense.' it 1 Mr.rJ. E.-Fitzgerald wanted to know : why the matter had not come before tlio ■ board in, the ordinary course.. He hadbeen looking';on the order paper for any' referenco to, it, but had failed' to- find 'any. It seemed fortunate that the matter ' had arisen through the question on tho' • correspondent!., In other bodies to which lie belonged, Committee work was invariably reported to the general council. Had tho Wharves,and Accounts Committee adi ministrative'ipower? i Mr.- Fletcher , stated that .the matter would havo 1:01110 before the board in any case, as he had a note on his oivn order paper to report it, as lie considered the question was ono of importance. What-ever-the -esiilt of , his rescinding nioi tion> would, lie, lie took it that he should 3 renort to the board. . v 8 Members assented that such was their j desire. , ,