THE WAIKATO-MANUKAU CANAL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 143, 29 March 1909, Page 2

THE WAIKATO-MANUKAU CANAL.

In connection with the proposal to construct a canal between the Manukau and the Waikato River, the following report which was read at the last meeting of the Raglan County Council, will be of intercut. The subject has evidently been considered in detail by the members of the Council, and the figures are no doubt reliable. As this matter is one that will greatly concern our County we have prepared a rough report giving what little information we have been able to secure bearing on the subject, mostly taken from the Railway Statement for the year ending 31st March, 1908. Goods traffic for the year ending 1908 on Auckland 'section, not including live stock, 571,433 tons, of this traffic the amount thatthe river 'and canal boats would have to complete for would be for the carriage of goods consigned inwards and outwards to all stations from Auckland and Onehunga, commencing at Mercer and south of Cmabridge and Te Awamutu, it being apparent that the railway must retain all the freight between Auckland and Mercer, and all stations south of Te Awamutu, and on the Rotoruu line. The freight carried on this portion of the line, not including live stock is roughly about 290,620 tons, this amount being made up as follows—Wool, 2675 bales—446 tons; minerals, including 165,945 tons of coal, 214,552 tons; merchandise, 18, 448 tons; grain, including butter, 25, 946 tons; timber 12,000,000 feet or 24,000 tons; lim-! and chaff, 7228 tons; total, 290,620 tons. Taking into consideration the fact that of the mineral a tonnage of 48,607 tons represents road metal and ballast, and of the coal a large amount is consigned to the Goldficlds, and grain includes butter—a commodity that we are informed could not be shipped by boats, and the timber freight is mostly carried from mills along the railway line outside the range of river competition, we think very large deductions must be made from the above total that it would be possible for the river and canal boats to secure from the railway. The cost of the canal will be, we are informed, on a rough estimate £l6O, 000; five per cent, interest on this amount represents an annual charge of £7500, aitd to this amount must be added the cost of maintenance and working expenses, which can safely be estimated at not less than £ISOO a year, a total annual charge of certainly not less than £9OOO. We consider of the above total freight of 290,620 tons, the canal and river boats at present could not under any circumstances, secure more than 70,000 tons. This would mean that canal dues of about 2s Tdper ton .would be required Jo meet charge for interest and maintenance, and this amount added to the freight would, in our opinion, even allowing for a reasonable increase of freight, place the canal in an unsatisfactory position to compete favourably with the railway, and in the absence of any data or information provided by those responsible for the furthering of the undertaking, thia Council does not feel inclined to support any recommendation ; to the Government to make the canal, or be a party to involving local bodies , in the financing of the undertaking.— ' BASIL HEWETT, Chairman. <