DETENTION OF CARGO.

Evening Star, Issue 3211, 5 June 1873, Page 1 (Supplement)

DETENTION OF CARGO.

To the Editor.

Sir,—l heartily concur with your correspondent “ Sufferer ” in his remarks in a late issue of the Star in regard to the delay in discharging the Wild Deer. This ship left England five months ago. It is true that her lengthy voyage was owing to circumstances over which the Captain had no control ; but surely after such a passage it was not too much to expect that every effort would be made to have her cargo landed in a reasonable time. Instead of this, what do we find? She has lain in the stream for four weeks, and but a small portion of her cargo has yet reached the consignees. To show that “when there is a will there is a way,” I may mention the case of the Alhambra, which a few mouths ago arrived in Port Chalmers at eight o’clock in the morning, and left next day at four o’clock in the afternoon, having in the interval discharged over three hundred tons of cargo. I an quite safe in saying that the Wild Deer has not discharged as much during the four weeks she has been in port. Your correspondent “ Sympathiser” comes to the rescue of the Wild Deer, and offers the stale and silly excuse so often palmed on the public in such cases, that the Customs entries were not promptly passed, and that, in consequence, the discharging of the cargo was delayed. Now, granting that there was some delay in. this matter, your correspondent ought to know that the agents have it in their power to pass sight entries for the consignees in the event of their neglecting to do so within a few days after the arrival of the ship. I recollect a case in which Messrs Cargill and M‘Lean threatened to do so, and the result was satisfactory. But the excuse is positively untrue. After an inspection of the manifest lying in the Custom house, I assert that the entries are passed, and that this ii no excuse whatever for the delay. There ia no reason whatever why a sailing ship should not be discharged in at least ten days longer than the time occupied by Melbourne steamers. When a longer time than this is taken, it arises from one of the following causes. Ist. The captain will not discharge the whole of the inward cargo till his outward cargo ia arriving, in order to save ballasting, 2nd. He is unwilling to employ “lumpers,” and leaves the discharging to his ordinary crew. Or, 3rd As I believe is the case with the Wild Deer, he has several transhipments to make, and refuses to open his hatches unless a, steamer for one of the Northern ports ia ready, to receive such transhipment. In Melbourne, a cargo of a thousand tons is discharged in a few days, and there is no reason why such should not be the case in Port Chalmers as well, for in proportion to the amount of shipping we have equal facilities for discharging, shipowners in Britain ofii r as an excuse for the high freights to Dunedin, the delay in the port. It would be well that they knew where the blame lies. Allow me to remind your correspondent “Sympathiser,” when he alleges a similar delay in the case of, the William Davie, which by the way is not correct, that “two blacks do not make a white,” and that whether “Sufferer” be a large importer, or the importer of

only one case, does not affect the question ; his one case may be as valuable to him, as one hundred cases are to a large importer. - I am, &c., Consignee. Dunedin, June 3.