TWO SLIPS OR ONE?

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1786, 26 June 1913, Page 5

TWO SLIPS OR ONE?

THE RIVAL INTERESTS. PATENT SLIP CO. & OWNERS FORMER UNDER FIRE. COUNTER DEPUTATIONS At (lie meeling of the Wellington Harbour Board last owning two deputations appeared, offering precisely contrary - view? as to whether the Harbour Board should not (under the agreement embodied in the Harbour Empowering Acl) call upon tiie Wellington Patent Slip Co,, to erect a second flip for the smaller vessels trading out of Wellington. Tl:e first deputation represented ■ the Patent Slip Co. Tho members of this deputation were: Mr. Harold Beauchamp, llr. W. A. Kennedy, Mr. David Nathan, and Sir. 'I'. It. Tripe (secretary to the company). Mr. Beauchamp admitted, the liability of tlio company under Clause 8 of the Fifth Schedule, and after reading correspondence which had passed between tlio board mid the company in 19X1 on the subject, stated that ho did not think that the early erection of a second slip was called lor, Tho number of vessels slipped in Wellington was not increasing.: In 1905 111 vessels were slipped; in IDOO, 10G; 1907, 106; 1903, 122; 1909, 110; 1910, 1H; and. 1911, 102'. This showed, ho maintained, that during the past ten years the uiimbei- of vesels slipped had not increased, and it appeared unlikely that they would increase during tho next ten or tivelve years. If a second slip were built there was every prospect of it lying idle. A new slip would cost between JCGOOO and £7000. According to a letter received recently from a Glasgow firm, the cost of tho machinery alone for a slip capablb of taking boats up lo GOO tons register would be .£2900 f.o.b, at Glasgow, That did not include the cost of tho timber employed, or tho excavation. Then there were the import charges,- which would amount to nearly another JC2OOO. Under tho agreement tho board had to pay for tho slip at the end of the term, and in addition for tlio whole of the improvements made. The present slip, ho maintained,'was adequate for all requirements, and it would be inequitable to saddle them with, a white elephant, whilst the shareholders would suffer a decrease in their dividends. Since. January, 1913, the slip had been empty for 20 days, and between October 1 and June 21 last the whole of the slip had been empty for a total of 33 days. Duaing the past year tliero wero vacancies during which an additional 133 small steamers oould lmvo b?on slipped. Tho company had received no complaints, and all applicants had been able to get the slip for a reasonable time on giving.duo notice. As far as they knew, no boats had gone away from Wellington owing to not being able to get accommodation. Tho shareholders were in receipt of a modest dividend of 0 per cent. In view of what lie had said, ho earnestly hoped that the board would not urge tho erection of a eecoud slip. , Ml'. Beauchamp added that oO vessels wore slipped last year for a total revenue of .£077. Tlwro was really ample accommodation for the small vossols of Wellington and he felt that they should not bo compelled to-undergo any unnecessary expense. , ~ The chairman: If you put up a small slip, would you reduce your charges? Mr. Beauchamp: Wo would be more inclined 'to increase tliem on account of the increase in capital cost. Tho sneaker maintained tlmt the company's charges wero reasonable though they could not bo compared with those of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, which body could allord to run its business as private companies could not. They might be able to <10-so if they wero a heavily subsidised body. Tlio chairman said that the matter would receive due cpnsideration. *

the other side. SOME COGENT ARGUMENTS. The second deputation on the subject represented the Shipowners' Federation and other interests. Its members included: Mr'. Wm. Cable, Captain Eckford, Messrs. Zohrab, W. Crabtrce, D. Robertson, S. Wood,, and 11. Luke. Mr. Cable said tho necessity for a second slip ought to be apparent to anybody and especially tho Harbour Board. Tho. board was at present making new wharf extensions from time to timp, but if they knew the delays that .occurred in waiting turn on tho slip, they would realise that a second slip was needed more urgently than moro wharves. In his own experieuce tliey had had ro wait as long as two weeks, during which time tho vessel had to.be laid up at the owners' qxpense. No olio could tell what repairs wcro needed until a vessel was out of tho water, and all tho tinio the Patent Slip Company got the fees, and yet they vero not allowed the proper time to do the work. They 'wore simply told, and that pretty emphatically, (hilt they had to get the boat off. They had all been bullied in that way, (hough tho paul tlieir way, and the Patent Slip Company should not bo allowed to talk to their customers in. that way. r l ho • charges wcro out of all proiiortion to those oi any other slip or dock iu the Dominion, Wiiat cost J2O in Lyttelton cost .£IOO in Wellington, and when there was a second slip 'reasonable charges' •should be Mr. Wright: Do you mean to say that you were ordered oil beforo the repairs were coiiiplctod? Can you givo a specific instance? • Mr. Cable said that the Gertio was ono caso in point. That was onlv last week. Mr. Cohen asked if Mr. Caffle was aivaro that there had been uo increase in tho number of boats slipped between 190j and 1011, and that there was no agitation for a second slip in 1905. ' Mr. Cable: That may be. We had not the power to get, and were expecting our dock. (Laughter.) . Mr, Fletcher asked if there was any suggestion of preferential treatment. Mr. Cable said that everyone knew that tho Union S.K. Company was practically the Patent Slip Company, and that lately tho Union Coni|>any had erected exteiisivo workshops'" near the slip, which meant that they intended to do more work there, and attend to more of their boats. Mr W. Bennett bore out what „ Mr. Cable had said, and gave specific instances of the charges made as between Wellington aii(l Lyttelton. The Kapm (2-1 i tons) had stranded at Patea m vember, 1907, and badly ,strained her rudder frame. She was on the slip at Lyttelton for 15 days and it cost <£18. For tho saiuo timo ill Wellington tho slip charges ■ would have been X!IC Ss. , In March, 1912, the Kapuni (136 tons) was damaged at Patea. Her slip charges at Lvttelton for 19 days were .£22. In Wellington tliev would have amounted to jilOO. Another case was the ■Ampaw (291 tons). She was support at Lyttelton for four days at a cost of .£2O. Tho Patent Slip Company's charge would have been .£36 7s. fid. At Lytlcllon n roduc(inn of 25 per rent, was made it a hocend boat was taken up at 1 lie same tune. No reduction was made in Wellington. In Auckland tho boat: could bo slipiwd tor the .same time (four davs) for X 34 at a dock mlit in' the middle of the to\vn, which meant that it cost nothing for Hie transport of men and matcnnl as it du\ in Wellington. If one hired an express to go to the Patent Slip it cost <s. Gd..lt might be true that the liumbcn of slippirn's had not increased since 190."). bnt it was"well known Ilmt I'he Union S.h. Comp.mv hail spent between and :cio,lloo there (near (he Patent. Slip), and the only inference to be made out of tluit was the coin puny intended to <lo more work there. If that were so, where were the smaller boats going? Auck and, I'oil Clialmevs, ami Lyttelton had docks us well as slips-Wellington, , the premier port, only had one slip. 11l answer to c|Ui>stions Mr. Bennett said lie was not complaining so much about (he inconveniences as the charges. Even if the charges were reduced a little lie did not. filial; it would meet the ease cf the small .shipowners. Mr, Cohen pointed out that Mr. Bennett's figures hardly agreed with the sco.lo of charges in Lyttolton. Mr, Bennett said his figures wero based

on tho scale issued in 190 G. They iun.V liave been increased since then. Captain Watson: Do you not bnvp to pay tho men from tho time they leave .Wellington ? . , Mr. Bennett: Yes, that is so, and it is a very expensive item. Air. AVright: Does Mr. Bennett suggest that tho Uniou Steam Ship Company aro given preferential treatment? .Mr. Bennett: I won't say that—but it is easy .to have applications in. Captain Kckford instanced several cases where he did not consider the treatment creditable to the port., Ono.was the caso of the Wairau, which was found to bo "leaking at the rate of -i inches per hour, on a Thursday, yet. he was not able to ' slip the vessel until the following Saturday. He also. stated that the small \ steamer Energy ' had been placed on the slip for a scrub and a paint. It had cost J! 10—a job he could have got done in Auckland for 80s. Mr. S.-'.Wood, shipwright, also .quoted cases of hardship imposed on owners, v himself, and workers through lack of.suf--ficient slip accommodation. In one'case ' slip charges iiud amounted to ;C231 for 81 days,'and the owners were informed that if the repairs were not done in HO days tho charges Would be doubled. That was eight or nine years ago, before tho present company took over tho slip. Ho ' said that' his father had tried year after year to : get a Site for n small slip, but liad always been blockcd. At last the liailway Department .had consented to give him a site near Pipitea Point, but , would not allow him to fence it off or erect a shed, so . the proposal-had to be dropped. In Auckland there were four '.email slips in addition to the' dock. . Mr. David Kobertson fervently exprcssed'ihe hope that the board represented interests outside the Union S.S. Co., and that it would help the small shipowners, who were so tremendously handicapped ■ with, tho charges made in Wellington. "Unless you're going to givo this your 1 support, .you're going to snulf out all the small industries we've spent our lives on, said Mr. Kobertson emphatically. ; Mr. Cohen: "Do you know that .there was Toorn for another 133 boats last '. ,'year?" ■ , ~, • Mr. Kobertson: "I don't believe it!

After the. deputation retired, Mr. Daniell raised tho point as to whether the board could not erect its own shf* by varying, the agreement. •. ' The>. chairman said firmly that he wa9 -not going-to support any idea for tho " board'to erect a. slip, when the Patent Slip Company have to, "if we can provoit s 'is'wanted'." That was all in ( the Act. No definite decision wa& arrived at, but further inquiry is to be.miUe in the matter, and specific instances of hardships experienced by small shipowners or© to bo eubmitted to the Patent Slip Company.