CHARGES ON WOOL

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2628, 25 November 1915, Page 9

CHARGES ON WOOL

WHARFAGE OR DUMPING? ANOTHER DISCUSSION BY HARBOUR BOARD. The vexed question of rate 6 charged on wool by tho Wellington Harbour Board was raised again at tho meeting of tho board- last night. At last meeting the board resolved to increase tho wharfage rates on wool, but in the course of discussion it was pointed out that - the board was making a small less on the dumping of wool, and this was urged as a reason for increasing the wharfage rates. A proposal was made that the dumping charges should bo_ raised to a payable level, but against •this it was urged that the board was in competition with Levin and Co. for dumping, and that this firm was taking a good deal of business, from the board. The motion to amend the by-law relating to wharfage was affirmed last | night without debate. ■■ ■ a Mr. R. E.' Sinclair raised tho question generally by moving: "That th« charge for dumping wool be increased by threepence per bale." The chairman pointed out that the increased charge would bring in an additional revenue of £1162. Tile question for. the board was whether for such a small return the hoard would risk loss of business, by charging a higher rate thaii its competitor. 'Mr. W. Cable, supporting the motion, said that Levin and Co. would be only too glad to bring their rates up to the,level proposed for tho board. Mr. H. L. Nathan moved an amendment to the effect that the proposed increased charge for dumping remain in force until the cost of dumping bandsand studs come back to the rates ruling prior to the war.

Mr. J. G. Cobbe inquired as to who would pay the increased charge on dumping, and was by no means 'reassured on learning that the ships would pay it. He suspected that tho ships would pass it on to the producers. In the course of general discussion, it was argued by 6ome members that there was ovidonco that lower wages were.paid by Levin and Company than by the board. This statement was con-, tradicted, _and a / suggestion was made: that the inoreaso bo made conditional upon Levin and Company. agreeing to charge the same rates and to pay the same wages a 6 the Harbour Board. This suggestion was not accepted by tho board. , The amendment was defeated by 9 votes to 3, and the original motion was defeated by 8 votes to 6, the division being as follows: — - Ayes: Cable, Harkness, MacFarlano, Nathan, Sinclair, and Wright. " Noes: Cobbe. Cohen, Daniell, Fletcher, Hildreth, Hindmarsh, Jones, and MaeEwan.

Mr. J. G. Cobbe moved: "That the additional wharfage shall be removed when the price of hoop-steel used in dumping falls- to £12 10s. per ton." Ho thought ihat his proposal was a most reasonable one, in view of tlio fact that the ostensible reason for raising the wharfage rates was the increased cost of materials used in dumping. Mr. M. Cohen seconded the motion.

Mr. R. A. Wright moved as an amendment: "That the additional wharfage shall he reconsidered when the pricb of hoop-steel used in dumping falls to £12 10s. per ton?'

In opposing the contention that the sole reason for the- increased wharfage was the increased cost of dumping materials, Mr. Hildreth pointed out that this was only one of manj reasons. The other reasons were that while tho rate on wool had remained at 6d. per bale for'niany,years,-owing,to ; .the increased cost of labour, arid.-the: increased cost of the, better facilities provided, it had been necessary in the meantime to increase the rates on general cargo on sevei'al occasions. Ho considered that the proposed higher rate .on. wool, was well justified. Both motion and amendment were defeated by 9 votes to 5.