INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2587, 22 July 1882, Page 4

INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION.

An adjourned meeting of the committee of the above association was held last evening at its offices, Hereford street. Present —Messrs A. Q. Howland (in the chair), W. H. Eaponett, J. B, Sheath, M. Sandstein, B. Buchanan, W. 8. King, H. H, Banks, J. Walters, B. J. Hale, B. W. England, J. A. Berg, D. Beese, A. B. Kirk, B. Ford. The Chairman said the object of the meeting was the discussion of the present railway tariff. Letters were read from Mr J. P. Jameson, apologising for his absence, stating that he had interviewed Mr Back re the higher rate charged for the carriage of buggies by rail than . for cart a, who assigned as a reason that more care was requisite, and that he eonld bold out no hope of a reduction in the tariff. Mr B. Smethnrst also wrote com* g lain in g that sand or gravel oonld be taken y road cheaper than rail. Ha thought Id per mile per ton would be ample.

The Chairman said the cost of sending a buggy to Timaru was £ 2, the same as the freight from New York ; whilst a farm cart "that weighed two tons more was charged £l los, It interfered with his trade, and farther the charge for a buggy to Southbridge wea 255. As regarded care by the railway department, if any mishap occurred be had to make it good. Mr D. Beese thought the railway authorities were fertile in excuses. The railway tariff was of great importance, and the charges between Port and Christchurch were so high that if cartage could be resorted to, contractors would do it at a less rate than 8s 9i per ton. This rate was far higher than charged on any other portion of the railways. The only fair comparison that could be instituted was as between the Port Chalmers and Dunedin|and the Port end Christchurch lines,

by the latter line, which was six and a-half miles, timber cost Is Id per 100 feet, whilst on the former line lOd per 100 feet was charged for a distance of nine and a-half miles, or three miles farther. The ohargce to and from the farming districts should be regulated by the cost of construction, which was leu than half expended on the Otago lines. It meant that we were paying for their lines. From Oxford to Ohrlatohntoh in proportion to mileage, as compared with Invercargill timber, the former paid four times as much as the latter, which was manifestly unfair. This was a serious question so far as Canterbur/ was concerned, as it was impossible to give country residents the benefit they ought to receive from goods seat to them for Dunedin. It was a question pertinent to them to fight in the interests of Canterbury.

Mr Waller said the port charges were also excessive. At one time merchants could employ their own men to load timber at per 100 ft,, and coals at 2d per ton. Now the Government refused to allow them to do the work, but charged them 3d per 100 ft. for timber, and Is per ton for coals. Mr B. W. England complained that no tally was taken by the railway people, and that consequently there was no protection to tb*» consignors. He thought that the merfbjSoyes should be allowed to take a ~ JSoh merchant pay the Government ' to do so. He proceeded to instance a number of glaring discrepancies in the rates of tariff charged on the Springfield and Whitecliffs lines, as compared with down South rates, which gave Otago the advantage in every case. He considered the Oxford-Springfield and Whitecliffs traffic deserving of special consideration. Mr W. S. Bing wondered the South tariff was lower, considering that on the Otago lines ten trucks of coal or timber required two engines, whilst on those in Canterbury one engine sufficed. The Chairman said these heavy charges meant that Canterbury was compelled to pay « higher rate for railway construction and maintenance than was enforced elsewhere, but at the same time it was hardly right to mention particular lines of railway, Mr D. Beese said Otago and Otago politielans had controlled, and did control, Canterbury railways, being willing to give ms the honor, whilst they got the profit; and yet cur Canterbury members stood by and allowed them to send their timber 300 miles at lower rates than should obtain. If the

We at Count railway was formed, magnificent timber not 100 miles off in large quantities were lying idle. What did the rote for the Otago Central Bailway mean but that they would get to the Coast, whilst Canterbury members dept. All he wanted was fair play—the same help to Canterbury as that given to Otago—and not to be handicapped. Mr E. Ford complained that the charge on bricks from Canterbury to Dunedin was 'OOO, and that was the same as it cost .m t. 're bricks from Europe. Ho grT? aered tiici/ iff in this case, and also as wtad Orforu imber, to be prohibitive, being : u fact proteo.ion to the importer. After discussion, Mr Kirk suggested that a sub-committee should be formed to compile a list of tariff inequalities for the consideration of the Government.

Mr iu, Sandstain took it that the object wail to get the Government to aid in fostering Hew Zealand industries by a liberal tariff, and not to crush them by an unequal one, andl place the tariff of Otago, Canterbury, and other railways on a fair and equitable footing. Ur W. S. King remarked that the charges on the Lyttelton and Christchurch railways, as shown him by an exhibitor who produced bills of charges, were higher from Lyttelton to Christchurch than from Sydney to Lyttelton.

Mr D. Beese proposed, Mr M. Sandstei seconded, and it was unanimously resolved—‘That a statement of the various items and 4ie objections to the tariff charged on the liHew Zealand Bailways be compiled and forwarded to Messrs H. Thomson and John Holmes, M.H.B.s, for presentation to the proper authorities, and that a committee be formed to draw up same, consisting of Messrs jjHowlsnd, England, Berg, E. BT, Banks, E. Bid, A. B. Kirk, and the mover,” Hfi'bij concluded the meeting.