THE QUEEN’S WHARF.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5014, 19 April 1877, Page 3

THE QUEEN’S WHARF.

A meeting of the Wharf Committee of the City Council was held at Mr. Beeves’ office yesterday at three o’clock. Present: —The Mayor, Councillors Moss, Mills, George, Dixon, Greenfield, G. Alien, Cleland, and J. A. Allan. MINUTES. The minutes of last meeting were read and confirmed. The discussion of matters arising out of the minutes which required attention was postponed till after other matters for the consideration of which the meeting was more specially called should be disposed of. WHARF DUES. A deputation waited upon the committee to urge the reduction of the wharfage rates. The deputation consisted of the following gentlemen;—Messrs. O’Shea, W. Turnbull, Baker, Morton, K. Keid, G. Crawford, Fordham, and Captains Mclntyre and Kreeft. Mr. O’Shea then read the following, which had been placed in his hands to lay before the committee : “The deputation humbly ask your Worship and Councillors to reduce the present high rate of wharfage upon flour and grain. The reasons for craving a reduction are : “ Ist. That previous to the Corporation taking over the management of the wharf the wharfage was Is. fid. This rate was a very profitable one, as very little labor was (and is now) required in handling the grain, as nearly all the carts back alongside the vessels discharging.

“ 2nd. That unless the wharfage be immediately and considerably reduced, the revenue derived from the flour and grain trade will be a thing of the past. Since the opening of the grain trade, during the last three weeks not a single vessel has discharged a cargo of grain upon the Queen’s wharf, and all the vessels with grain cargoes—nearly 600 tons—have discharged at Plimmer and Beeves' wharf. They charge fid. per ton under the Corporation rates ; and as a further inducement, they invariably give a bonus of 3d. per ton to the captains of the vessels discharging. As the wool season is now over, ample accommodation can be found at the Queen’s wharf for all the grain vessels. This matter requires your serious investigation, and it is one of great importance to the merchants and others of this port, and the duty of all to see that this revenue is not lost to the Corporation. “3rd. That it is necessary the wharfinger should not be connected with any mercantile house, and it is also necessary that the wharfinger’s time should be given entirely to the management of the wharf and the protection of its interests.—Jas. O’Shea, general merchant ; George Thomas, grain and flour merchant ; F. O. Kreeft, grain and flour merchant; W. M. Bannatyne and Co., merchants; D. Mclntyre ; W. and G. Turnbull and Co. Mr. O’Shea said he had only one remark to make in addition to the above, which was this: that great complaints bad been made of the high rate of wharf charges on flour and grain, higher than at any other port, and shipments of such cargo had decreased in consequence. He was himself largely concerned in this business, and he knew that great complaints had been made during the last year. Captain Mclntyre spoke in confirmation of what had fallen from the last speaker, who had expressed the feeling of the grain merchants on the subject. The charges were so high that it did not pay to send grain to this port. When they came t consider the small profit on a ton of grain, and the high rate of wharfage charged on it in comparison with other goods of the same value, he felt no 'doubt that they would see the necessity of making a reduction.

Mr. Reid remarked that during the last ■week a large quantity of flour for transhipment, imported by Messrs, Turnbull and Co., had been discharged at Plimmer’s wharf in consequence of an inducement being held out to the captains of vessels to discharge at that wharf. The flour could have been landed on' the Queen’s wharf and placed on another vessel at the usual transhipment rate of 2s. per ton; but in consequence of the flour having been landed at Plimmer’s wharf the firm had had to pay ss. 6d. a ton on the flour—2s. a ton for discharging at Plimmer’s wharf, la. a ton for carting the flour to the Queen’s wharf, and 2s. 6d. a ton outwards.

Councillor Cleland remarked that they had nothing to do with where vessels discharged their cargoes. Mr. Reid said he had made this statement of facts to show the difficulties that grain merchants had to contend against. Mr. O’Shea explained that the question was as to whether the Corporation should not contend against the existence of circumstances (ho did not know what they might be) under which stuff would find its way to a private wharf irrespective of the convenience of importers. If a legitimate rate were charged on the Queen’s wharf, he thought private individuals would not be in a position to hold out advantages sufficient to induce vessels to discharge their cargoes elsewhere. He did not say that if he had a private wharf ha would not endeavor to attract trade there, and he did not therefore blame those who had private wharfs. What he desired to point out was, that it was the duty of the Corporation to compete with them, and reduce the rate so as to bring it down to the same price. He wished to add that he was a supporter of Mr, Reeves. He did not wish to throw out any insinuations against that gentleman ; but simply desired as a merchant to point out the inconvenience that existed, and to which he had already referred. The Mayoc promised the deputation that the committee would give the subject their careful consideration.

.The deputation then thanked the committee, and withdrew.

Subsequently the matter was considered and the following resolution come to,—That on after the Ist May next a charge of Is. per ton bo imposed for examination on all bonded

goods passing the wharf. And that on and after the Ist of May next, the wharfage on flour and grain be reduced from Is. fid. per ton to Is. per ton. IN HE THE WHARFINGER. On the question of the charges laid against the wharfinger being brought forward, a discussion arose as to whether the representatives of the Press should be allowed to remain. Councillor George opened the subject by asking whether it was intended that the discussion should be private. He thought it should be. '"lie Mayor replied ; Everything will be public. Councillor George ; Do you intend that the reporters shall remain ? The Mayor : Decidedly. Councillor George ; Then I shall retire. (Councillor George then left the room.) Councillor Moss : I think, Mr. Mayor, that it is an unusual course. Councillor Mills : I am of opinion that a discussion affecting a man’s character should scarcely be made public. The Mayor : I am in tho hands of the meeting. Mr. Beeves : So far as I am concerned, gentlemen, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I court every publicity. Councillor Mills : There can be no doubt that the presence of reporters who take down every word that is uttered to a large extent prevents freedom of speech. A serious charge has been brought against Mr. Beeves, and it is no use blinking the fact that you cannot speak freely when you know that every word you utter will be trumpeted forth. Things might be unintentionally said in a discussion of the kind which would not hear tho strict color of truth. I am only one, and give yon my opinion. I desire that there should be full discussion of the matter, in order that the truth may be arrived at, and, as I have, before stated, I think this would be better attained by the proceedings being private.

Councillor G. Allen remarked that it was usual in committee for the proceedings to be private, the which practice prevailed in all legislative assemblies from the Parliament downwards. With regard to the present case, they had a serious question to discuss, and he thought it might be advisable to exclude the Press.

The Mayor desired to point out that reporters were uot necessarily excluded because the Council were in committee. Beferringtowhat Councillor Allen had stated, it was true that proceedings in Parliamentary committees were not usually reported ; but that was no reason why they should not be, the Press not being excluded. At the same time it was optional with any meeting to resolve that the business should be private, and it rested with Councillors to say whether that course should be adopted on the present occasion.

The motion that the Press should not be admitted was then put and carried, the Mayor being the only dissentient. The reporters accordintrly withdrew. It may be stated that Councillor George reentered the room subsequently. . After the conclusion of the meeting our reporter was furnished with documents laid before the meeting in reference to the case. In the first place the petition for the removal of Mr. Beeves was read, as follows : “Wellington, 12th March, 1877.

“GENTLEMEN, —We, the undersigned merchants, carriers, &0., who continually suffer pecuniary loss andinconveniencein consequence of the incompetence and mismanagement displayed by the wharfinger, moat respectfully ask you to investigate the charges made at the late meeting on the wharf, which were as follows, viz, ;

“1. That he is entirely ignorant of the best disposal of labor on the wharf, inasmuch as the best men have been drafted thence to the various ships, leaving the subordinate officers none but the worst hands to work with, and whore ten first-class men are required cutting them down to two or three. “2. That notwithstanding the assurance given on his appointment that he would give hiswholeattentionto the Queen’s wharf, we have considerable grounds for believing as follows: — Ist. That the stevedores and lumpers (that is one gang at any rate) are employed by him, and that he in an indirect manner favors that gang by permitting them to work after other lumpers have been stopped from working. 2nd. That offers have repeatedly been made and accepted, of a bonus to coasting captains, if they would discharge at Messrs. Plimmer and Beeves’ wharf, thus withdrawing revenue from the Queen’s wharf to the benefit of a private firm. 3rd. That as a rule when he is wanted in a case of emergency, either he is not to be seen or he is in such a state of excitement that no satisfaction can be obtained. “3. That he has not force of character sufficient to regulate and govern a body of men, as witness the disorganised state of the employees, the utter carelessness and irresponsibility of the tally clerks, the permission given to carriers to write their own receipts, the loss or misplacing of goods caused through cargoes not being sorted, the frequent stoppage in consequence of the laborers being allowed to place cargo all over the wharf indiscriminately.

“ 4. We learn that Mr. Beeves is endeavoring to obtain testimonials as to efficiency, but we would respectfully ask you to ascertain whether these testimonials are not based on the efficiency of his subordinates, who, if they had more license and more labor at their disposal, would, to a very great extent, remedy the existing evils. Under the lesaeeship of Mr. Jackson, business was worked comparatively well. The only difficulties arose, as a rule, from the badness and insufficiency of the regulations, and we have not the least doubt that were a competent man engaged the whole of the present difficulties would be obviated.— (Signed)— W. and (Jr. Turnbull and Co., Jacob Joseph and Co., New Zealand Shipping Co. (Limited), Philip Moeller and Co., Wm. Dawson, Joseph Nathan and Co,, B. J. Duncan, T. and W. Young, M. L. Marks, Edvvd, Anderson, W. Jameson and Co., James Stewart, George Crawford, Beck and Tonks, John Taylor, J. N. Miller, A. Tullock, J. Higgins, Jas. Monaghan, J. E. Margetts, Pollock and Young, James J. Curtis, G. Anderson, H. Curtis, S. Waters, Kirkcaldie and Stains, T. Munt, J. Barnard, J. Blyth, B. Walsh, G. Smith, James Mitchell, E. Hearles, D. Anderson, jun. In reference to the above the following letter, sent by Mr. Beeves to the Mayor, was read :

“ Wellington, April 13, 1877. “ Sir, —Referring to the petition presented to the Council calling in question rny fitness for the office of wharfinger, I beg to inform you that in conversation with some of those who signed, notably Mr. George Crawford, Messrs. Kirkcaldie and Stains, and Mr. David Anderson, junr., X find to ray surprise that the petition supposed by them to have been placed before them was one solely in reference to tho new cartage regulations, and not in any way reflecting on my capacity. “ I beg in consequence respectfully to request that tile petition be returned to those who presented it with instructions to have bona fide signatures attached to the document itself, and not to a separate leaf, when I shall bo only too happy to court any investigation that may be thought necessary. “ I may mention that I have only yet spoken to five of the petitioners, and four of them disclaim any intention of acting against me in any way, while the fifth desired inquiry as much for my sake as for that of tho public to got at the truth, but intended to express no opinion. ~.

“I presume it is unnecessary for me to get up counter evidence until,' tho petition bo proved to be genuine.—Voura, &c., , : i, ,Edward Reeves.” Tho Mayor’? reply was to this effect : -o i P/Thei Mayor’s Office, April 1 4.

“ Sir, —In reply to your letter of yesterday’s date, impugning the genuineness of the petition which reflects ripen' your conduct as wharfinger, and. which petition was laid before the City Council at. Its last meeting, I have to state that the petition having been received and read; I am not at liberty to entertain any such point as you how raise, but I have no doubt the Wharf Committee will bo quite pro-

pared to hear and consider any evidence you may choose to produce in support of the statement you make in tho letter now before me, and in order that every facility may be afforded you in a matter of this kind, you will be at liberty to take a copy of the petition and the signatures thereto if you wish to do so.—l have, &c., “William Hutchison. “Edwards Beeves, Esq., Wellington.” Mr. Beeves then made a statement as follows ;—“ I desire with the permission of the committe to make a statement. After careful consideration I have decided, with due respect to the committee, to take up the following position with regard to this petition. I must decline to defend myself from any of the charges therein made, because 1 assert it is not a genuine petition, and that the signatures to it have been procured, in some cases, by the deliberate exhibition to the signers of another and different petition in order to obtain their signatures, this one being afterwards substituted and presented to the City Council as the real one ; and in other cases by simply presenting to signers the separate white sheet of paper containing the signatures, and representing the matter to be one merely of approval or disapproval of the new cartage and storage regulations. The committee will observe that the petition is written on three halfsheetsof blue foolscap, while the signatures are all on asepavate sheet of white paper, attached to the petition by a brass pin. My proofs of the above assertion are contained in written statements made by the following gentlemen, whose names are on the white paper;—W. Jameson and Co., John Taylor (of W. W. Taylor’s firm), Joseph Nathan and Co., George Crawford, D. Anderson, jun., Edward Anderson, Kirkcaldie and Stains, and E. J. Duncan. “ I decline to defend myself from the charges made in that false petition, for the further reasons that when I had cleared my character of the charges therein contained, not only would these and other gentlemen to whom I have spoken, labor under the unjust charge of making false accusations against me (which they never intended to make, and never in reality did make), but, on the other hand, their well-known probity would weight agaiut me, and the impression would be naturally left on the public mind that they still thought ill of me, but could not actually prove anything. The prime mover in this matter is Mr. Nicholas Reid, head salesman in Messrs. W. and G. Turnbulls’ grocery department. The bitter eagerness with which he has canvassed the city against me is freely commented on in commercial circles. Ten or twelve of the leading importers have to my knowledge refused to sign any petition against my manage-

ment, and some of them h ive volunteered to sign a counter petition if I chose. Undaunted by such rebuffs, Mr. Eeid has been the mainspring of the present discreditable attempt at a petition. If he will come forward aud in his own name make distinct charges against me in writing-, I shall be delighted to give him an opportunity of proving them in a court of law. If any others of the petitioners have any grievance, I beg they will kindly state such in writing, and I will endeavor to set the matter right. I firmly believe this can be done, as I am not conscious of hav-

ing either feared or favored any one in the execution of my duties; or of ever having broken the regulations ; or of having done any thing detrimental to the interest of the City Corporation. There is no doubt that by the employment of additional .labor more satisfaction would be given to merchants. These should bear in mind, however, that my duty is first to my employers, yourselves, and that it would have been a much less honorable coarse for me to have worked to please the public and make things easy for myself at extra expense to the City Corporation, than to do my duty as I would be expected to do it for any private employer. “With your permission, air, a word about the cartage regulations. The carters think these regulations deal hardly with them. Left to_ themselves, I am of opinion that they, as a body, would have fought their own battle fairly and in a straightforward manner. The committee having left this matter entirely to my discretion, I desire to make an effort to continue working the wharf under the present free system of cartage, and to spend more money on labor. Also to appoint, under Mr. Prince, the time-keeper, a foreman of labor, who shall also be sworn in as a constable, and whose duty shall be to keep order on the wharf, and see that goods are despatched speedily, and blocks avoided. The committee must not blame me if the next balance-sheet be less profitable than the one now presented. I beg to request that the fullest publicity be given at once to this statement and the accompanying letters.” As showing that the signatures attached to the petition against Mr. Beeves had been obtained by misrepresentation, the following letters Were read : April Hi, 1877.—Mr. Reeves.—Dear Sir, —The copy of a petition that you have shown me, and that I have initialed, is not duplicate of the petition that I signed.—W. Jameson & Co. The petition that is shown me, and that I have initialed, is not the petition signed by me. —John Taylor

We are likewise under the impression that the petition now shown ns is not the one exhibited at time we gave onr signature.— Joseph Nathan & Co.

Wellington, April 13, 1877. ; —T0 his Worrhip the Mayor, City Council Chambers, Wellington.—Dear Sir, —Observing our name is attached on a separate loaf to a petition charging Mr. Reeves, u harllnger, with incompetenoy, and requesting his dismissal, wo beg to state that, having no fault to And with Mr. Reeves’ management, we understood that we were signing a petition simply against the new cartage regulations. As we have no fault to find with our carter, who lias always attended punctually to the delivery of our goods, we would not wish to sea him deprived of our work. We therefore beg, with your Worship's permission, to have our name withdrawn from the said petition.—We are, &c., Kirkoaldie and Stains

Wellington, April 10, 1877.—T0 Ins AVorship the Mayor.—Sir,—l beg to state if my name is attached to any document reflecting on Mr. Reeves’ management of the wharf, it is entirely under a misapprehension. A paper was presented to me, which X signed, as I was told it was a petition against the new cartage regulations, which I disapprove of. I have no fault to find with Mr. Reeves’ management. — I am, &0., Georoe Crawford.

Molesworth-streefc, Wellington, April 13, 1877.—T0 his Worship the Mayor.—Sir,—l beg to state in connection with the petition against Mr. Reeves now before the Council, that 1 signed solely under the impression that my goods would bo almost at once put into store, thereby causing mo extra expense. This it was plainly told me by the party who brought it was the object of the petition. I had no intention of calling in question Mr. Ileeves' fitness for the office of wharfinger.—l am, &c., D. Anderson. Junr. W r ellington, April 10, 1877.—T0 his Woiship the Mayor.—Sir,—l bog to state with regard to a petition to the City Council on wharf management, bearing my signature, that I have had no cause of complaint since the appointment of Mr. Reeves as wharfinger, and ray only object in signing the petition was t'» proveht'any alteration in the existing cartage regulations. —I am, &c Edward Anderson.

Wellington, April 13, 1877.—T0 tho Mayor and Corporation of tho City of Wellington.—Sometime ago I signed a paper regarding tho conduct of tho wharf under Mr. Reeves’ management. My principal reason for doing ao was that the charges current against him should bo inves igatod, and I now beg to state that if, after investigation, they should turn out to be unfounded, I will have great pleasure in believing that the insinuations made against him were incorrect. —I am, &c., T. W. Young.

Wellington, April 18,1877. —His Worship the Mayor, Wellington.—Sir,—Some time ago I was asked to sign a petition, and was informed that tho effect of it was to cause an inquiry to bo instituted into the management of tho Queen’s wharf generally, and not to express dissatisfaction witli Mr. Reeves' conduct. I did not see or read tile petition : but noticing that several of tho principal firms had signed tho paper, I considered it unnecessary to hesitate in signing it for one minute, believing, as I have before stated, that tho terms of the petition wore for an inquiry into tho management of tiro wharf, with a view to improvement and facilitating business. Personally I have no —nor over had any—grounds of complaint regarding tho way Mr. Reeves lias conducted tho business. —1 am, tea., R. J. Duncan. Wellington, April 16, 1877.—Sir,—It lias como to ray knowledge that a petition, has been sent to the Mayor and Council complaining of tho wharfinger's management, and that tins petition lias boon signed for me by one of ray clerks In my absence from town. X bog to say that it was done without my knowledge or authority, and request that my name may be withdrawn from tlio document. —I am, &c., William Dawson. W. Hutchison, Esq,, Mayor.

The committee having duly considered all the correspondence, unanimously came to the following resolution: —“That from letters received by the Mayor and wharfinger, and laid before tho Wharf Committee, it appears that a number of the signatures of the business firms attached to the petition dated 12th March, 1877, and presented to tho City Council on tho 12th April, 1877, have been obtained by misrepresentation. Tho committee therefore decline to consider tho petition in any way.” Tho meeting transacted some routine business, and adjourned at 6 o’clock,