DOCK OR SLIP?

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2473, 28 May 1915, Page 3

DOCK OR SLIP?

NEED FOR REPAIR FACILITIES AN AGREEMENT RATIFIED Tho delay in the erection of a second patent slip was brought under the notice of the Harbour Board on Wednesday by a deputation representing the 6ma'l shipowners, the ironmasters, and tho allied trades. The deputation urged that there was urgent need for better faci'ities for ship-repairing in Wellington. At present, shipowners were abso-. lutely in the hands of the Union Company,' and ships were often delayed for several days. They urged also that there was rea'ly peed for a moderatesized floating dock, because the fact that the slip was three miles from the City made all work costly. It was complained also that there was a lamentable lack of appliances at the slip. There could be no doubt, it was contended, that a floating dock was the most suit able appliance for ship repairing, and that it would prove a highly payable' proposition to the board. Even if a new slip were erected, the shipowners and the ship-repairing trades would only be more than ever in-the hands of the Union Company, Mr. C. W. Jones asked Captain Eckford to say whether he thought a floating dock was preferable to a dry dock. For his own, part he was quite in favour of a dock of some sort. Captain Eckford, representing tho small shipowners, said lie was of. opinion that a floating dock was preferable to a dry dock. Mr. Wright: Would a dock pay? Members laughed significantly. Mr. Jones: No docks pay in New Zealand. Captain Eckford said the board should not consider the profitableness or otherwise of the project alone. But if he were to be treated as ho had been he was certainly going to take his ship to Lyttelton. The chairman promised that the matter would have consideration, and the deputation withdrew. . Subsequently correspondence was received from the Patent Slip Company agreeing to the board's terms for the immediate construction of a second slip. These terms are that the company build a slip 130 ft. long, and that in seven years at the renuest of tho board the* extend it to 150 ft. . Mr. W. Cable moved the following motion of which he had given notice: '•'That the Wellington Patent Slip Company, Ltd., having refused to comply with the resolutions passed by the board on.April 21, that the whole position be reviewed by the board and steps taken to remedy the deadlock." He strongly protested against the action of the board in approving of the 130 ft. Sr. Fletcher said that the board had not agreed to, the 130 ft. slip at first. The board had asked for a 150 ft. slip, but the Minister of as arbitrator under, the Statute, had modified the terms in this particular. Mr. Cable said that the effect of the building of. the shorter slip would penalise the small shipowners for seven years, by compelling them to put their ships on the big slip and to pay the big fees. Shipowners were infinitely better treated in the matter of repairs at the'port of Lyttelton. The small slip would _ not be of the slightest use. The chairman said that to pass the resolution would 6imply stultify the board. Mr. A, H. Hindmarsh seconded the motion. He said the board had no right to' hand oyer to the Union Company this monopoly, which was. detrimental to shipping interests in Wellington. ■ Mr. R. Fletcher said that he sympathised with much of what Mr. Hindmarsh had said. But it was no fault : of his or other members of the board that the Patent Slip passed out of the hands of the Harbour Board. The man who was to blame was Mr. Harold Beau- i champ, who had been at the same time i chairman- of the Patent Slip Company : and a member of the board. Mr. Fletcher went on to say that the resolution was absolutely ultra vires. No deadlock existed. If Mr. Cable at next meeting would bring down a motion to annul the agreement with the i Patent Slip Company, in other words the Union Company, he would support : it. Even if this meant legislation he I would support it. The monopoly was one that should not be allowed to exist. Mr. Cohen 6aid they had all heard a good deal' about "a scrap of. paper." ■ The board had put its seal to a scrap of paper, and by that bond they would nave to abide, whether the agreement was a good one for the board or not. 'Mr. Daniell ?lso agreed that the board were parties to a contract. Mr. Cable finally agreed to withdraw his motion with the object of bringing down another motion at' next meeting. Mr. Cable then moved that the consideration of the letters relating to tne agieement between the Slip Company and the board be postponed until next meeting. Mr. Fletcher _ said that if the board ! released the Slip Company from their liability the company would be very pleased, and the board would be saddled with 'the liability of building another shp. Hie motion was defeated by six votes to five, and the board decided to ratify the agreement.