The Globe. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1875.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 411, 6 October 1875, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1875.

The deputation which waited upon the Government yesterday with regard to the present excessive rates of carriage charged on the Lyttelton and Christchurch line of railway, must have been disappointed in the answers returned to them by the Secretary for Public "Works. That gentleman, well known as a shrewd and successful business man, appears to advance the theory that an excessively high rate of wharfage, craneage, and haulage, must be charged on the goods landed at the Government wharves in Lyttelton, in order that a sum of £6OOO may be shown as the return from these wharves. The reason for this sum being shown as the return is, that the lenders of money would then be satisfied with the nature of the security offered to them, and would be prepared to advance the necessary sum for the completion of the requisite wharf accommodation. But it appears to us that the levying of such rates as are at present charged by the Government is a step in the wrong direction, and is more calculated to fill the pockets of those persons who have private wharves than to increase the returns from the Government wharves, to the amount which it is so desirable should be dangled before the eyes of the capitalists who wish to lend money. Mr Nathan urged, very sensibly, the extreme impolicy of making the present traffic, which is, of course, open to immense increase, bear the rates equivalent to the interest of the money required for the accommodation of future traffic, but the Government could not be persuaded. The example of the plan pursued in Otago was also brought forward, and the merchants in the deputation complained, and with great justice, of the disadvantages under which they labour as compared with their Dunedin brethren. There can be no doubt but that the action of the present economical Executive in this matter has led to symptoms of a reviving of the river trade, which has of late years been entirely cut out by the Lyttelton and Christchurch line of railway. Tf the schooners from Port Lyttelton to the Heathcote wharves can compete with any success against the railway, it must be evident to anyone, not absolutely blind, that there must be gross mismanagement somewhere. The blame may rest on excessive wharfage rates or excessive haulage, both of which are charged by the Government, but the mismanagement cannot but exist. If, instead of trying to induce merchants to use the Government wharves, by reducing the rates charged to the lowest limit consistent with any return from these wharves, the Government persist in charging almost prohibitive rates, we

cannot wonder if efforts are made by the merchants to try and render themselves independent of the Government accommodation provided in Port Lyttelton. Such a line of conduct as that pursued by the Government would be condemned in a business man, and would probahly be felt by him, when he viewed his business falling off, to have been an egregious mistake. But it is more open to reprobation when the merchants of the province are to a certain extent in the hands of the Government, and as it is not to be supposed that they will suffer any loss if they can help it, the Government charges fall upon the customers of the merchants. It is due to the merchants, however, to acknowledge that they have made the first protest against the present excessive rates, and the public of Canterbury should back them up in their endeavour to obtain a more reasonable scale of charges from the Executive.