GISBORNE HARBOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1761, 30 May 1906, Page 2

GISBORNE HARBOR.

(To the E4itor Gisborne Times.)

Sin, —What tax do the sheepfarmers, directly and indirectly, have to pay for the want of a harbour ?

In your issue of yesterday was published a balance-sheet most flattering to the Board of Administration. To the casual reader the financial aspect appears to be very good, but as it does not take into account the indirect taxation this balance-sheet is of very little value as a guide. I find upon enquiries made that the indirect taxation is £16,000 per annum.

The gross revenue, rates, wharf charges, etc., is £34,000 Indirect taxation (lightering) ... 16,000

Total cost per annum

... £40,000

The report gives the cost of the Timaru harbor as being £7OO per week, or £36,400 per annum. The cost of conveying the goods to the wharves from the sheds and vice-versa can be considered as being equal in each case, and eliminated from future calculations, and an interesting comparison can be made between the cost of handling the goods by the Timaru and Gisborne Harbor Boards. Thus, last year the exports from Gisborne amounted to £702,000, and the cost of handling same was /40,000, or 5.7 per cent, of the value of the exports. At Timaru £1,100,000 worth of goods was exported, costing £36,400, or 3.3 per cent, of the value of the exports. There is a difference in favor of Timaru of 2.4 per cent. This contrasts badly with the efforts of th« Gisborne Harbor Board in endeavoring to provide a port at a huge cost. Another interesting feature is the comparison between the wharfage rates as existing in 1878 and those of to day : >*- Wool, flax, per bale (1878), 3d; 1005, Is 3d from fiats, 3d from coast. Sawn timber, per 1000 ft (1878), 6d; 1905, 4s per 1000 ft inward.

All other goods, wares, merchandise, per ton (1878), Is; .1905, 5s inward, 2s 6d outward.

Cattle, each (1878), 2s 6d; 1905, 5s inward, 2s 6d outward. .

Horses, each (1878), 2s 6d ; .1905, 2s 6d. Sheep, 1 to 40, each- (1878), Id ; 1905, 4d first 50.

Sheep, 41 upwards (1878), £d j 1905,2 d 51 upwards. , . . . . ;.

Excepting horses, the charges now vary from 100 to 800 per cent, greater than in 187 S, simply because we have got a riven' harbor. In 1878 there was then 12 feet ofwater on the bar sometimes, as there is' now sometimes. In 1878 the harbor works had not been started; now we pay for that privilege. Has the Harbor Board’s expenditure developed trade ? I think not. Trade has expanded naturally without the aid of the harbor works, whieh are useless. We still have to lighter our goods as in 1878, but at a vastly increased cost. Therefore the harbor works have dong nothing for the development of the trade of the district, but have extracted from the pockets of the producers a considerable amount of money to pay interest on the large sum borrowed, and now partly represented by .so many hundreds of feot of concrete running out on to the sand.— lam, etc., SEAGULL,

{To the Editor .Gisborne Times.)

Sir, —The harbor expenditure figures published by you are of great interest. One item, “ From 1885 to 1905 the total receipts of the Gisborne Harbor Board" were £466,088 8s lid.” -And lighterage, not a penny cheaper! The policy of the progressives put to the test. —I am, etc., W. ELEPHANTUS.