ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 400, 15 February 1879, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

PATEA S.S. CO., AND THE FREIGHT

, QUESTION. (To the Editor of the Patea Mail.) Sir, —In the leading article of your issue of February Bth, these words occur : “ The Patea Mail quoted with approval a paragraph from the Wanganui Herald, setting forth that the Directors of tire Patea S.S. Co. had agreed that shareholder’s freight should be charged only at the rate of 30s per ton, whilst non-shareholders would be charged 40s. In quoting the paragraph we stated that ‘ The arrangement has been unfavorably commented on in Patea, and unless altered, tbe Company will likely enough find out they have made a mistake. 7 Shareholders, whose imports are about nil , are equally dissatisfied with non-shareholders, and desire to know what profits are likely to accrue to them for capital invested‘if the large importing shareholders are allowed to pocket 10s per ton on freight, before their (the investing) shareholders turn comes.” As the foregoing is not a true statement of the case, I shall be obliged, if you will allow me, to lay the Directors 7 view of the matter before the public. There can be no question that the starting of a local steamer is likely to prove a great boon to the Town of Carlyle, and .the County at large, and those who have the interests of the district at heart should ■be careful • how they spread reports calculated to injure the Company, and which arc based upon erroneous or insufficient information. The facts of the case are briefly these— Freight on all imports from Wellington and Nelson have been fixed at 40s a ton, and on all exports to these places, at 20s a ton to shareholders or non-shareholders alike, but the usual business custom of a drawback, allowed by all shipping companies, is given to sliareholdeis when the freight in any one month exceeds £ls, at the rate of 5 per cent, per share.

Now, Sir, you appearto view this as unfair 1 —first to the public, and secondly to the" investing shareholders, who are not likely to figure much as cither importers or exporters ; it will therefore be as well to examine the matter a little in detail.

Giving the public the precedence then, how do they suffer? They did not find the money to build the boat, and considering that ihe first action of the Slopping Co. has been to cut down Wellington freight from 50s to 40s a ton, I cannot see they have much to grumble at, except on the principle of reviling those that do good to you. I pass then to the investing shareholders,, and here we come to the real question at issue, and that is, “Ought the drawback in the interests of these shareholders to be a fixed sum, as 10 per cent., and allowed to all who put business in the way of the' Company, to the extent stated above, or should it be confined to shareholders only ? The Directors took the latter view on the following grounds ; Firstly—At the time the decision was come to, only some 70-shares were taken up, and it was thought desirable to offer as much inducement as possible to all shippers to become shareholders, so as to avoid borrowing largely, and paying a heavy ■interest. With this object in view, the Directors forwarded circulais to nearly all the business men in the County, inviting them to take shares, and informing them of the advantages to be gained thereby, The event has justified the course as now only G shares remain unallotted. » Secondly'—Unless some such drawback was allowed, it would pa)' shareholders who were largo importers better to make arrangements with the first steamer that offered such an inducement, in preference to supporting their own boat, to the detriment of the Company as a whole. Thirdly—Several of the Wellington and Nelson merchants declined to take shares in the Company, on the ground that when the steamer started running, they would be in as good a position of doing business as those who had taken shares, and this would be manifestly unfair to those who had helped the boat from the beginning. I would here point out that all shippers can derive the same benefit as the shareholders, by dealing with those Wellington and Nelson firms who'* have shares, and getting their freight prepaid, and as now nearly every firm doing business in the Patea District has shares, this course does not present any difficulty. When once the principle of allowing a drawback to shareholders only-, was admitted, it must reasonably follow that the amount should bo pro rata of shares 1 held.

. . I think then, Mr Editor, the investing shareholders will find when the dividend day comes round, that their interests have not been neglected, but that the Directors have acted for the good of the Company as a whole, and therefore for the good ofthese gentlemen also. I must apologize for the space taken up’ by this long letter, but I think the matter is so important to the shareholders, and the public also, there being no question (hat direct communication with large ports and cheaper freight is of immense advantage to us all, that I hope your readers will forgive the lenght at which the subject has been discussed.—l am, &c., ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE STEAM SHIPPING CO.

HAW ERA ROAD BOARD. (To the Editor of the Patea Mail.) Sir, — Could you inform mo, as I am a kind of a new chum in this District, if the Hawera Road Board’s balance-sheet has been published for the last two years in your columns ; also, if the members have or are receiving pay for attendance, and at what rate per head ? lam informed that all last year’s rates are not paid. Perhaps you could give the information. Is there no chance of your columns finding room for the minutes of the above Board’s meeting. Surely your correspondent could forward them. The minute book is open for perusal by any ratepayer during the week. —I am, &c., QUERY.. o WAVERLEY TOWN BOARD. (To the Editor of the Patea Mail.) Sir, —I see in your issue of the 12th instant “ Waverley ” states, “ and also that the Valuer had failed to sign the Valuation List.” Being a ratepayer in that District, I called and- examined The Valuation List , and found “Waveilcy” in error. “ Waverley ” should, for his own, if not truth’s sake, be more precise in his terms, but it is possible his capacity does not enable him to know the one front the other. —I am, &c., WAIROA.