SHIPPING FACILITIES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1470, 2 June 1905, Page 3

SHIPPING FACILITIES.

'(To the-Editor Gisborne' .Times^

Sir, —Wa respectfully ask for space in your columns to put before the public our views of the discussion which took place at the Gisborne Harbor Board’s meeting on Monday afternoon in connection with the cost of discharging and delivering cargo ex s.B. Storm at the wharf. The Board referred us to their bye-laws on cargo sheds, which we quote, as follows : ‘•1. Cargo from-any vessel may be deposited in the shed during wet weather, or when the business stores are closed upon application beiDg made to the wharfinger by the agents of the vessel. “ 2. All goods deposited in the sheds_ to : be removed within 12 working hours after the weather has, in the opinion of the wharfinger, sufficiently moderated to allow of the removal of such goods, or after the business stores are open. “3. The agent of the vessels to have possession of the keys of the shed during the times the goods are stored therein, and to be responsible for the safe custody of the goods, and for any foes that are due or may become due thereon to the Gisborne Harbor Board. “4. Tho Gisborne Harbor Board does not hold itself responsible for the safety of any goods deposited in the cargo shed.” These bye-laws wore framed some 20 odd years ago, and wo think the general public will agree with us that it is quite time they were amended, as it is obvious that facilities for working the port in those days would be quite inadequate for the present trade. We would also point out that these bye laws are not now in foroo, as it would bo impossible with the acommodation provided for all consignees to remove their goods within twelve working, hours, and thus avoid the charge of 3s per ton per diem, supposed to be made under bye-law No. 2. Again, referring to byelaw No. 3, we think it would not always be possible for agents of vessels to have tho key of tho sheds, as there may possibly be several cargoes to deliver at the one time, and as Messrs Kennedy and Evans seem to have tho prior claim for cargoes received from steamers in the roadstead there would uofe be sufficients sheds avail* able for all. _ We venture to suggest that m order to encourage - steamers to come up to tho wharf (which is a big consideration to importers) and to generally advance this thriving port and bring it more into line with the working of other ports throughout tho colony, that the Gisborne Harbor Board should make a move to employ tally cleiks and control the delivery of all cargo, this in consideration of the 5s per ton wharfage paid by consignees. It is only reasonable to suppose that when the business of the port is increasing so quickly that some provision should be made in thi3 way. Under the existing conditions steamers discharging at the wharf are at a disadvantage, os they have to pay charges for puttings goods into the sheds, stacking and delivering, which should not be borne by them. Tho Wellington Harbor Board, we believe, stands foremost in the colony for light charges and quick despatch of vessels, and as everything there is under the control of tho Harbor Board, who do all in their power to meet the requirements of consignees and shippers, we think our local Board could not do better than take that Board as a model as far as working could bo applied to Gisborne. We quote the following extract from a pamphlet of information relative to the port of Wellington : “ Wharf charges.—Wharfage on goods i 3 paid by consignees of cargo, and is as follows: General cargo, inwards 2s per ton, outwards Is per ton. Wool and hemp, inwards or outwards, 6d per bale. These charges include labor, and in tbc ease of general cargo one night’s storage. The Harbor Board acting themselves as wharfingers receive the goods from the ship’s slings, give receipts therefor to the Bhip, tranship, store, or delivered as required, thus the work is oarriod on more satisfactorily and cheaper than if the work of receiving was loft to private enterprise. Special attention is direetedUo the low I charges of all kinds, but particularly to tho | transhipping charges on general goods of j 2s 6d per ton, and on grain, farm produce, etc., of 2s per ton, which charge covers all labor and wharfage as well as a week’s free storage. The transhipment charge on wool and hemp is 6d per bale. Dairy produce for transhipment, removed to freezing works or cool stores, and reshipped, is charged a transhipment rate of 2s 6d per ton, exclusive of cartage.” In the interest of the port wo trust tho Gisborne Harbor Board will give tho matter their earnest consideration, and that very shortly we will see a change in tho system of delivering cargo, and more encouragement given to one of tho most important classes of trade to the port, namoly, that of vessels capable of discharging at tho wharf, and delivering cargo with one handling less than those discharging in the roadstead, manifestly to the advantage of tho consignee, and indirectly to tho gonoral public. We would also point out that vessels discharging at the wharf charge a lower rate of freight, as they do not incur lighterage, whioh is also to the advaatago of tho consignee and general public.—Yours faithfully, COMMON, SHELTON & CO.. Lta. Per W. B. COMMON.