THE FOXTON WHARF.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 1391, 27 April 1915, Page 3

THE FOXTON WHARF.

PROPOSED PURCHASE

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BOARD AND DEPARTMENT.

The last deputation that visited Wellington in connection with the agitation for the acquisition of the Foxton wharf by the Foxton Harbour Board, was met with the suggestion that the price to be paid should be settled by arbitration. The Board immediately agreed to the suggestion and later the Railway Department also consented to this course. Everything is now almost ready, but before the matter was finally submitted to the arbitrators it was thought advisable to first get the opinion of the Solicitor-General as to the legality of settling the price in this way. This opinion has not yet come to hand, but the Harbour Board at its meeting last week decided to hand the whole of the correspondence in connection with the wharf-purchase question to the Press for publication in order that the public might know exactly what bad been done. The following is the correspondence : Letter from the Board to the Minister for Railways, dated Dec. 28th, 1914 ; “Following your interview with Mr Flennessy, chairman, in Wellington, I am directed to state that at a meeting of this Board held on the 24th inst., it was decided to suggest the more equitable way of arriving at a fair value for this Board to pay, would be to include in the order of reference the following : That the amount to be assessed on the cost of building a similar wharf to the present one, and that the purchase should cover the whole of the foreshore and buildings thereon including Levin aud Co. and the West Coast S.S. Co’s, frontages. This should give a greater value than the wharf as it at present stands, considering its age and the annual upkeep. It has been suggested to ask Mr T. Weston, solicitor, Wellington, to represent this Board (if oae only is required) audit two are required then Mr Cohen, of Palmerston N„ to act with Mr Weston, and it is hoped this will meet with your approval. It should be kept in view the Board will presumably have to erect necessary good sheds and offices in suitable positiou for siding accommodation, and in addition provide a suitable dredge to keep the river navigable at all times and make the harbour what it should be, and this will mean a considerable annual outlay. Under these circumstances it is thought the Board can reasonably ask you to be satisfied with the past earnings taken into railway revenue with the additional value of erecting a new wharf, which latter the Board is willing to pay. I am to ask you to give this your early and most favourable consideration so that a speedy aud just settlement may be arrived at to enable the Board to carry on its functions under the Harbour Boards Act and for which it is elected.”

Letter from General Manager ot Railways to Mr Weston, Board’s representative, January 13th ;

“With reference to your interview respecting the Foxton wharf, as verbally explained to you a number of very important questions arise in connection with the desire of the Harbpur Board to acquire the railway wharf at Foxton, andj}before finally deciding on the order of reference I should he obliged it you would ascertain from the Board precisely what they have in mind in connection with their project for acquiring the wharf. The layout of the station yard includes sidings and a good shed on land adjoining to and parallel with the wharf. A railway siding is also laid on the wharf with crossovers giving access to other portions of the railway yard. It is desirable to know whether the Board contemplates working the wharl and shipping on its own account, and if so what portion of the existing accommodation it would require, and in respect to the foreshore what depth of land the Board ask should be included in the order of reference measuring from the existing bank of the river and the face of the existing railway wharf. I send herewith print of plan showing the lay out of the present station yard on which I shall be glad if you will get the Board to delineate what it desires to obtain In conjunction with the purchase of the wharf. As soon as I am favoured with your reply arrangements will be made to complete the order of reference. It must, of course, be understood that so far as the actual working of the traffic as between the wharf and the railway is concerned, the terms and conditions will require to be embodied in a separate agreement to be prepared later, the terms being of course dependent on the nature of the operations as determined after discussion with the Board.” .Letter from the Board to Mr Weston, dated January 25th ; “Replying to yours of the 15th covering a letter dated 13th from the General Manager of Railways, I am now directed by the Chairman to say it is quite understood that apart from the matter of the the wharf proper separate agreements must be made as to the working of traffic etc., and sufficient siding facilities. The Board contemplates working the wharf and shipping traffic on its own account and it is thought as well to make this clear for the order ot reference, but it is felt that for some time and until the question of shed accommodation can be decided, an arrangement between the Railway Department and the Board for working traffic could be

made. The plan submitted has been marked starting from the cattle yards, covering the two lines of rails and thence onwards to the corner of and including Levin and Go’s, shed and the land taken by the Department since the Foxlon Harbour Board Act was passed. It is not proposed to ask for the railway weighbridge, but it is asked that the whole of the loreshore should revert to the Board. It is of the utmost importance that the whole of the revenue from shipping should be available Jo the Board to enable it to meet its engagements and so improve the port to permanently increase the traffic. The Beard is looking forward to the further extension of the wharf by providing another berth, and it may be in that case necessary to extend the line of rails beyond the cattle yards, but in the meantime, as the yards are perhaps essential to the'railways it is not proposed to ask they be included in the order of reference, but to rely upon reasonable arrangements being made with the Department for any stock required to be shipped. It is most desirable that the whole of the foreshore should be included rather than the possibility of later on having to open up further negotiations. The question of shed accommodation and working traffic lor the time being could be better dealt with by personal interview with the General Manager. It is an important matter and any suggestion from Mr Hiley would be very much appreciated and may possibly be of mutual advantage. The matter of siding accommodation is also of primary importance and must be fixed. It is hoped that this is plain and a copy of proposed order of reference will soon reach the Board. The Board is keeping in view the limited area of the station yards, and is only asking for that portion and siding facilities Irom which ordinary shipping revenue can be derived.”

Letter from Mr Weston to the Board, dated February Bth : “We duly received your letter of 25th January, and forwarded the plan aud copy of your letter lo the Assistant General Manager of Railways on the morning of January 27th. Since then we have twice spoken to Mr Herries on the matter, and he said he expected the matter to be brought before him directly the Department had collected some further information as to the alterations the acquisition by your Board of the koutage required would necessitate in the present railway yards. We to day saw Mr McVilly to hasten matters, aud he informed us that he hopes to fix matters this week.”

Letter from the Board to Mr Weston, dated February 17th : “Yours of the 13th to hand, in reply, I am directed by the Chairman to say there should be no immediate necessity to alter the station yard. If it is .sufficient for the Railway Department with the present wharf it should only be a matter of mutual arrangement for the Department to continue using it, provided the Board gets a satisfactory service lo and from the wharf. The Board’s sole object, is revenue. If the Board can save the Department the cost of alterations it should cheapen the cost to the Board. Please make this matter clear to the Minister aud Mr McVilly, and ii you think a personal interview between yourself and the Chairman would further matters, let me know.”

Belter from General Manager of Railways to Mr Weston, dated April 9111 : “With further reference to the question of the terms on which the Foxton railway wharf should be acquired by the Foxton Harbour Board,l have the honour to in form you that it is proposed the arbitrators should take evidence on the following points : —(r) The revenue derived Irorn ships dues at the Foxton wharf. (2) The revenue derived from wharfages on goods landed and shipped at Foxton wharf. (,3) The net revenue derived from working the wharf as a going concern, (4) The value of the structures and sidings laid thereon, and any Government sheds built on that portion of the wharf which the Harbour Board desire to acquire. (5 ) The effect which the diversion ot rail traffic to the sea route via Foxtou would have on the revenue of the railway as between Wellington and stations to Palmerston North and beyond. (6) To what extent, if any, the shipping traffic to and from Foxton has increased or diminished since the period used as the base period in assessing the value of the wharf, viz., years 1908-1912 inclusive. (7) The capital value, as a going concern, of the wharf based on the net revenue at the present time, and having regard to its beneficial effect in providing traffic for the railway while worked as a part of the railway system. (8) The capital value of the land vested in the Railway Department contiguous to the wharf and river front which would be disposed of with the wharf. With respect to the Board’s proposals to work the wharf and shipping traffic on its own account, I consider it desirable to point out to you at this stage that there are considerable difficulties in the way of giving effect to the Board’s proposals. The Board, in the ordinary course of events, would require to give receipts to the ships for all imports, whether they are subsequently conveyed from Foxton byrail or carried by road to final destination. The Railway Department could not, of course, be bound by such receipts, hence all goods arriving by ship would have to be re-sorted at the Foxton goods shed, and handling and conveyance charges, which would not be

less than rs 6d per ton, would be made in respect to these. With regard to export goods, the Railway Department would expect the Harbour Board to give its receipts for such goods when delivered in trucks at the siding connecting the railway yard with the wharf. The Harbour Board would probably require such goods to be tallied from the shed before giving receipts, and this service will involve a charge of at least is 6d per ton. So far as the common use of the goods shed as between the Board and the Department is concerned, the Department would offer no objection provided the shed Is found to be sufficiently large lor all requirements, but it would, of course, charge a rental for the use of the shed. The better and more satisfactory plan of working would be for the Department to receive and deliver all goods at the ships' - provide the labour, and make u charge of so much per ton to the Board for services rendered. In that case the Department would collect all wharfages and ship’s dues for the Board, charging 2)p per cent, for the services performed, and would account to the Board four-weekly for the revenue received, and at the same time give the Board a debit for services rendered, paying to the Board’s credit the difference between the two sums. I shall be glad it you will submit these points to the Board and favour me with an early reply as to whether the Board has any suggestions that it would like to make in respect to matters not included in the Order of Reference. The terms for working the wharf after its acquisition by the Board can, of course, be readily settled by discussion between the representatives of the Board and the Railway Department subsequently.” Letter from Mr Weston to the General Manager of Railways, dated April 13th ; “I am in receipt of your letter of the 9th April, and have shown same to the Chairman of the Foxton Harbour Board. The question? in dispute between the Board and your Department are two: (1) What is the fair and equitable basis on which the compensation or purchase money to be paid to the Railway Department ior the wharves and land required by the Board should be computed ? Your Department wants that basis to be the capital value of the net profits earned by the Department from the wharfages. The Board points out that under the Harbours Act all harbour dues and wharfages have to he spent upon the harbour, and no Board is allowed to make and store up large nett profits from wharlages and harbour dues, and hence if the Railway Department have been making anythin 4 over an amount sufficient to pay 3 V n - r cent, on capital invested in the wharves and lands, and a fair allowance for depreciation in buildings and structures,' the Department (which as a Government one is supposed to act with complete fairness and rectitude) is doing something which a Harbour Board or the Government administering a harbour under the Harbours Act in default of there being a Harbour Board, is prohibited by the Statute from doing. The Board therefore contends that the purchase money should he bas'-d upon the actual value of the land and structures. The second and final question for the arbitrators is: Having determined the basis on which they are to fix the purchase money, what should that purchase, money be ? it is open for the Department to lay before the arbitrators all the points mentioned in your letter of the ylh instant, and no doubt the arbitrators will consider them, but the two points at issue between the Department and the Board are the two above mentioned. All other facts ate simply either arguments or evidence, after hearing which the arbitrators will decide the above points. “P.S. —As regards the question cF working the wharves, this matter the Board will consider, but it need not delay the arbitration. No doubt the Board will be able to come to a working arrangement with your Depaitment.”