THE FOXTON WHARF.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 919, 17 November 1910, Page 4

THE FOXTON WHARF.

The following is the continuation of Mr P. J. Heuuessy’s evi* dence-’given before the Railway Committee in support of the petition re purchase ot the local wharf; The revenue from the wharf from the ist April, 1909, to the 28th February, 1910, eleven months, was £2,230 7s. That would be the gross amount. Allowing for expenses, the net revenue would be considerably less than this. It is to be borne in mind that if the river were kept in proper condition, and every reasonable encouragement to shipping given, this revenue would increase enormously ; but while the present state of affairs continues and nothing is done to the river, the revenue is more likely to decrease. As a matter of fact, it has decreased considerably tor the last six months, owing to nothing having been done to the river. Since the Board came into existence the cost of managing what was previously managed by the Marine Department has decreased by a very large amount, and the management ■ has been equally effective. This can be shown by the following figures, which, in regard to the Marine Department, are, I believe, correct, and are, at any rate, as near as I could obtain. The Marine Department paid:—

Harbourmaster ... 2xo Levin and Co. ... 200 Pilot’s assistant ... 36 Z 446 The Foxton Harbour Board pays;—• £ Harbourmaster ... 200 Assistant ... 25 Of the endowments given by the Foxton Harbour Board Act to the Board, the one having the most prospective value is the foreshore, and of this the most important part was that between the Foxton wharf and Levin and Co.’s wharf. The value of this part of the foreshore lies in its convenience lor business purposes. Messrs McMurray and Co. proposed erecting buildings for shipping purposes on this land, and the Board expected to get the benefit of that; but in the Gazette of the 26th August, 1909, a Proclamation was published by which the Government took this part of the foreshore. The Harbours Act gives the Government power to take Harbour Board lands for railway purposes, and prevents the Board from claiming any compensation for land so taken, unless material damage is done to buildings belonging to the Board. By this move the Government took away from the Board, which is already deprived of its revenue, the only land which gave it any chance of getting any revenue. The interests of the railways are made paramount to everything, particularly to shipping. A good deal has been said about the danger of development of the port injuring the railways. Even if it did, the sole object should not be the advancement of the interests of the railways without regard to anything else, any more than it should be the advancement of the port regardless of everything else. The general welfare of the district or the country, and not the welfare of any particular Government Department, should be the basis of a decision on the matter. In any case the railways would be benefitted, rather than injured, by the development of the port. There are many things, including very heavy material, which are more conveniently carried by water. There is also more carriage required than the railways can conveniently cope with, and this will increase. Water carriage will never injure the present facilities for carriage by land from Wellington, unless these are unnecessarily increased. All the present carry-ing-capacity of the WelliugtonManawatu Railway will always be fully occupied, however much the carrying-capacity through the port may be improved. Moreover, it is to the advantage of the Railway Department to have the Foxton port well developed as an accessory to its carrying business. The cost of haulage from Foxton to Palmerston is considerably less, in proportion to the distance and consequent expense to the Department, than it is from Wellington to Palmerston North. An engine which can haul 200 tons out of Foxton could only haul xoo tons from Wellington to Paekakariki. The Railway Department cannot make up for this additional expense by putting it on the consignors, unless it closes up the Foxton port altogether, and thus takes away any possible competition from this source. That is as things now are, and they must at least remain so if they cannot be improved. The Wellington-Mana-watu line has to compete with the port, and therefore cuts its rate to a lower proportion than what it gets on the Foxton-Palmerston line. As it cannot absolutely shut up the port, it would pay it better if the port were sufficiently opened up to euable it to carry a greater amount of traffic on the FoxtonPalmerston line than at present, seeing that it gets a higher rate on that line, owing to the cheaper cost of haulage. When it is considered that the Wellington-Maua-vvatu line is now overtaxed, and the Foxton-Palmerston line is not, and the latter line is more profitable in proportion to its length than the Wellington-Manawatu line, it is apparent that it would be to the advantage of the Railway Department, instead of to tts detriment, to encourage rather than oppose the development of

the port, and consequently the increase of traffic on the Foxton - Palmerston line. I want to make myself clear on this part of it. We will take Class A on the railways. The railage from Foxton to Palmerston is 16s, over flat country for twenty-tour miles. I do net know whether I am right to a shilling as regards the rate the Manavvatu Company used to charge from Wellington to Palmerston, but I think it was ,£i 4s 6d for Class A. If the railway competes with the port, it will have to come down to £I 4s 6d. That would mean hauling Class A over sixty-four miles of Government railways for 8s 6d per ton. The Chairman : Do you mean, to £l4s6d or 16s ? Witness : The rate at present charged by the Railway Department is 16s for twenty four miles. To come clown to the Manavvatu Company’s rate between Wellington and Palmerston North it would be only £ 1 4s 6d for eighty-eight miles, which would leave the Railway Department 8s 6d for hauling Class A sixty-four miles over rough country. Although ever since the former Foxton Harbour Board was abolished in 1886, and, in fact, ever since the Foxton wharf was first built, the Railway Department has been receiving the chief source of revenue from it —which must iu that time have greatly exceeded ,£24,000 —it has never done anything at all out of these or any other funds towards the maintenance, upkeep, or improvement of the river from which the revenue is derived, except on one occasion, about seven or eight years ago, when some dredging was done near the wharf. But even this can scarcely be said to be expenditure by the Railway Department, because some of the gravel dredged up was profitably employed by the Railway Department itself, and the rest of it was sold. The Marine Department endeavoured occasionally to do a little dredging, but, like the Board, it did not have the necessary funds. The funds required for this purpose should have come from the wharfage revenue. The Railway Department even claims and collects wharfage from the owners of private wharves recently built on the foreshore, which was vested iu the Board by the statute creating it, and which the Railway Department has since taken away from it —namely, the wharves built by Devin and Co., and by the West Coast Shipping and Trading Company. The former was built before the Board came into existence ; the latter some considerable time after. The Board is at present collecting wharfage from the latter, and the Railway Department is doing so also, the company accordingly having to pay double wharfage rates. The sources of revenue which the Board has in addition to these wharfages, which are paid under protest by the shipping company, owing to its having to pay the Railway Department also, are about a year from rents, and about from pilotages. These sources of revenue were given to the Board from the Marine Department, not, of course by the Railway Department, but the total amount received from them is, of course, altogether too limited to enable the Board to do anything at all to the river. It is just enough to keep the Board in existence, and no more. (To be Continued.)