THE WHARF AND ITS REGULATIONS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4126, 11 June 1874, Page 3

THE WHARF AND ITS REGULATIONS.

TO THE EDITOR. BIR, —The advent of your paper has been marked by a desire that public abuses should fairly be brought before public gaze, and there is scarcely any subject or matter which calls more for your attention than the mode upon which the Wellington wharf is at present conducted. It appears that your contemporary, the Post, is equally zealous with yourself that certain abuses which now exist—such as overcrowding the wharf, and rendering it dangerous for pedestrians—should bo rectified ; for ho admits that your strictures on the unsatisfactory character of the wharf regulations arc welldeserved. He goes farther, and states that they arc unduly favorable to the lessees, and scarcely adapted to our mercantile community. Xow, sir, under such circumstances why should not passengers and others be relieved as far as possible from all inconvenience and annoyance by the wharfingers, whose duty, as lessees of the public estate, should be to afford them every assistance for the profits derivable from this venture It frequently occurs that goods are landed during the absence <»6 the consigned, who finds it utterly impossible to watch the landing of every particular package or packagoe. The goods are consequently stored, and when the unfortunate consignee inquires after In's goods, ho is referred from A to 13 and from 13 to 0; .and lastly, lie Is told to find Mr. King, Mr. Prince, or some other noble, and after rushing about for some considerable time, he returns to find his goods have been stored, and a demand immediately made for wharfage and a week’s storage. I believe in Wellington, as in every wellregulated town, that certain printed regulations are in force, which are intended to inform the commercial community and others what they are expected to pay wharfage upon, and what is to bo their quid pro quo. How far these regulations are acted upon may bo illustrated by a simple case which occurred a few weeks ago, which was termed by the presiding magistrate a twopenny-ha'penny case.

I believe a Mr. Marks sued the wharfingers for detention of his son’s baggage, carried by baud, and upon its being measured, contrary to the regulations as in clause 4, the wharfage amounted to the huge sum of 2 Id,, the clerk refused to receive a larger amount or any amount but the exact coppers, pleading' as a reason that tile canler or servant stated ho had been advised by a lawyer to try the question, but as the dispute had not arisen, nor did it appear likely to do so, it appears somewhat strange that ho could have misunderstood the man. Supposing, for instance, that a passenger who is rather late and -tunning down the°wharf with his luggage, is met by one of the clerks, who demands 21d., lid., Sd., or any other sura in coppers, the unfortunate passenger may have only 2s. (id., os., or £l, how is the case to bo met ? He must either pay a larger sum, go to sea without his baggage, or lose his passage altogether. It is quite time that the Corporation should define what they mean by clause 4 in the Wharfage E emulations, which enact that all baggage or ships’ stores carried by hand are free. I aj>preheud that, if such regulations were only applicable to seamen and stewards, the clause should now save and except passengers’ luggage. And further, sir, the grounds upon which the Eesident Magistrate gave a decision entirely adverse to this portion of tho printed regulations, are difficult to comprehend. The clause is plain,, for it could never have been intended by tho framers of such a clause that every passenger should be compelled to carry his trunk or portmanteau, or even “ hump” his own “ swag.” Although the question was alluded to as a twopenny-ha'penny case, still tho principle involved is highly important, and one which is necessary to be understood by every visitor who lauds in the Empire City, so that they 'may not be subjected to those potty annoyances which ai'e only to be found on visiting small sea-port towns on tho ’Continent. It would have been well had our Corporate body, in framing their regulations as relating to the wharf, compelled lessees to declare quarterly or half-yearly their returns and disbursements somewhat in accordance with banking institutions, so that tho tax-payers might know what is tho value of their property, and also enforce the greatest amount of civility from the occupiers of public property. As tho wharf will have to be re-let, I trust a public meeting will lie convened, and that in the present enlightened times, a co-operative body will unite for tho leasing of the same, which will have the effect of doing away with monopoly, and that civility and attention will be their loading motto. If so, no one will be more zealous in the cause, cither as a shareholder or speaker than your humble servant, Cosmopolitan. P.S.—I shall in a futftre letter call attention to clause by clause of the Wharfage Kegulations for public information.