WHARFAGE TARIFF.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 913, 11 June 1903, Page 3

WHARFAGE TARIFF.

(To the Editor of the Times).

Sir, —I am pleased to note that the questions raised as to wharfage tariff are securing so much attention, but regret that tho correspondents who have referred to the subject through your columns are practically burking the question as a whole. My object has been to have the matter looked into for tho good of tho Gisborne district. I have gone to considerable trouble in obtaining the tariff lists of other ports ; it is difficult to inuko comparison with the charges at our own port, for the reason that many articles specified in other tariffs are not specially set out in tho Gisborne tariff. I have, however, specially set out a number of items, and made comparison with Auckland and Napier, showing that wo are situatod between two ports, each of which import and export produce, etc., at much lower races than Gisborne is doing, the natural effect being tbat tho trade of areas north and south which should properly corno to Gisborne is lost to us ; and I would ask people to read tho opinions of tradesmen given in a report presented to the Farmers’ Union. It has been suggested that tho Farmers’ Union should make specific representation to the Harbor Board as to different items to be dealt with ; but it would hardly be right on their part to take up such a position before being invited. An excellent suggestion, however, uas been made by Mr Li-sant Clayton for a committee including tho members of the Harbor Board and experts in commerce who aro not members of the Board, but would gladly give their assistance. For my part I am not wedded to any particular, desiring only the good of Gisborne and district. The items I have named I am prepared to stand by and challenge anyone to use those items in comparison with the Gisborne tariff. MiuEliott aptly put the whole subject when he stated that the Gisborne harbor was antiquated. An

example of this is shown by the fact that what is now one of the main staples of the colony’s export butter —is not even mentioned. In a recent issue of the Times you had a leading article calling the attention ot the Board to the fact that the Nuhaka dairy pioducts would be graded at and exported from Gisborne if tho people were met in a reasonable way by the harbor authorities. You can depend ou it that Napier will seek to got that trade, as has been tho case with other articles, and in what position aro we to hold tho which will go to tho ctieapest port ? The same will shortly apply to Tolago, and even in regard to the Motu, Gisborne should remember that a back door is being opened up to the Opotiki side. Take another line of produce, pumpkins, which, it has been proved, grow in this district better than in any other part of the colony. They are worth from 25s to 30s per ton on the wharf, and yet the exporter is charged half a crown a ton, which is a heavy tax directly hitting the small farmer. Auckland allows farm produce a special tariff to itself. A local saddler has executed Coast orders for pack saddles, etc., every article in which, excepting the straw, had

already paid inward wharfage, and yet he is called upon to pay heavy outward wharfage as well. I can enumerate other instances, where saddlery and harness sent down for repairs have incurred wharfage both ways. The import charge on the carcase of a sheep is fourpenee. Is not that absurd •? Would (jthat encourage Coast trade ? Mr Lysnar and others state they cannot have pigs shipped from Coastal ports to Gisborne, for the reason that the wharfage charge is one shilling each lQlport, as well as the export charge on the bacoo. What we require i?i as pointßu out by Mr Clayton, sacb a tariff as would, by increasing trade, speedily more thau make up for any deficiency. In the interest of the district, it is certainly worth trying. Every item should bo carefully examined, and an up to-date tariff adopted, —I am, etc., Frakk Harris,