EFFICIENT OF DISTRICT.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 274, 7 February 1929, Page 5

EFFICIENT OF DISTRICT.

IMPORTANT SCHEME. By T.T.T. Company.

i | Writing to the Putaruru Chamber l of Commerce, Mr. F. G. Dalziel, i chairman of the board of directors of the Taupo Totara Timber Company Ltd., defined his company’s attitude to the chamber’s effort to promote the efficiency of the Putaruru district, in a letter read at Monday’s meeting, in the following clear-cut language:— "My board will do everything it reasonably can to support you, and for your information I think it well to define its railway policy. “ In October, 1918, we wrote to the

1 Right Hon. W. F. Massey as Prime Minister, urging that the Govern-* 1 ment should take steps to bring about a combination of the Crown, native and European timber interests adjacent to the company’s railway with a view to a permanent transport policy being arrived at both for the timber business and land settlement, but this combination has not yet come about- “ We have proposed that the timber owners should enter into a permanent arrangement whereby all timbers, including the company’s, should be carried on the company’s line at the same price, which would include sinking fund on the present value of the line, interest on that

[ value, and working expenses. The effect of such an arrangement would be that when the timber is cut out the district would have the use of 'the line on payment of the working expenses only. “We have also proposed that all timbers adjacent to the line should be worked as one area so that as little waste as possible may be involved in the process. “ My board believes that as part of an arrangement for the consolidation of the timber areas it would be a sound proposition to reduce the charges for goods other than timber on its railway to Government rates, calculated as if the company’s line formed part of the Government railway system. “ The timber in the district must find the bulk of the cost of the railway and it is obvious that the more timber there is to bear the burden the smaller would be the charge per 100 feet. The main difficulty standing in the way of the consolidation of the timber interests is the suggestion that the Crown timber, which lies beside the company’s, and another area privately owned, which together form half the timber in the locality, can be more profitably carried by constructing another line from these areas to the RotoruaTaupo line and bringing the timber to its market in the Auckland district by way of Rotorua. “ My board is satisfied that this suggestion will not bear investigation, and has been endeavouring to have a Government inquiry made, but so far without success. The position has been complicated by negotiations between the Government and the owner of this private area. In 1928 this area was owned by the natives and my company suggested that it should be acquired by the Crown. The Government decided, however, not to buy it, and early in 1919 it was acquired by the present owner for a little over £SOOO. Shortly afterwards the Government Railway Department decided to purchase the area for, I understand, about £175,000, but Cabinet declined to sanction the purchase. In October last we heard that the owner was again negotiating with the Government for the sale of this area at a small increase in price on the former offer and we wrote the Prime Minister suggesting that it would simplify matters if the Government owned this area and offering to supply all information at our disposal, as to its true value. We received a reply thanking, us for this offer, and saying that the Prime Minister would communicate with us again “ when enquiries relating to the suggested purchase are completed.” If the Government will have the question investigated we feel sure it would lead to the solution of the transport problem of your district. I may say, in conclusion, that my board does not regard the RotoruaTaupo line and my company’s line as opposed to one another. We agree with the conclusion of a special committee of Parliament in 1912, a Royal Commission in 1921, and a ! committee of Government departmental heads in 1922, that the company’s line serves a district not eonI veniently served by the RotoruaTaupo line and that the company’s line is of permanent value to this district and should receive encouragement accordingly. We also agree with the eonelus ; cn of the Govern-

ment experts that the taking over of j the company's line by the Government is not a sound proposition. We would, therefore, suggest to you that every effort should be made to induce the Government to investigate in the near future the question of how the timber adjacent to the company s line can be most efficiently and economically transferred from the national point of view.’*

Mr. Griffiths stated the letter gave a plain indication of the company’s stand and was an important communication so far as the chamber was concerned. Matters were very satisfactorily and he felt the district was on the eve of big events. Mr. Lochhead stated he had conned the letter very thoroughly and felt it gave a clear cut definition of what the chamber had been striving for. In regard to meeting the Ministers, it had been the custom in the pastto elect a committee to put forward various views. This generally resulted in someone having a brain wave at the last moment and mentioning something extraneous which was debatable, and which tended to confuse the issue aimed at.

Mr. MacFarlane agreed and pointed out that the consolidation of native interests in the five northern counties and on the East Coast had worked wonders. Maoris worked their own factories on the East Coast the only white man being the manager, while in Whangaroa a Maori invariably secured the challenge cup.

On the motion of Messrs. Lochhead and Neal, Mr. Griffiths was appointed to present the chamber’s case.