South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2590, 9 July 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1881.

At the June meeting of the Harbor Board, a report was submitted from a sub-committee, recommending that the Board hand orer the working of the wharves attached to the Breakwater to the Hailway Department, subject to their reducing the proposed port charges from Is 6d to Is on all goods except general merchandise, to or from the wharf to Harbor Board or private sidings. The proposal to hand over the wharf to the Government has given great dissatisfaction both to the merchants and producers of the district. Of course, if one could feel assured that the Railway authorities would study the convenience and interest of importers and shippers, it would be better that the wharf and the railway were placed under the one management; but there is no assurance that such a desirable and happy state of things would prevail. There is no

need to cast any reflection upon the local officials of the Railway department. They would doubtless do their duty as far as lay in their power in an impartial and obliging manner. But still they are servants of the General Government, and would be bound to obey orders from headquarters. We do not think that it is advisibletbat the wharf should pass out of local control. There is too mnch centralisation already. There is no occasion for the Harbor Board to add to the power of a body ontside the influence of local opinion. It can safely be depended on that the Department would endeavor to make the most of the transaction. Of course, the haulage rates would be fixed, but then there are many ways of working the oracle. Retrenchment is the order of the day, and particularly so in the railway department. We all know that there are times of great activity in traffic on wharves, when every effort is required to dispose of goods. The question is, would the railway men rise to the occasion. It is more than doubtful. The central power could snap its fingers at importers and shippers. In all Government affairs there are certain hard and fast rules to be observed, and a point is seldom stretched. If the railway department is to have a monopoly of haulage from the wharf, it will bide its own time. Grain may lie in stores and goods in the ship’s hold till such time as it suits the convenience of the department. That much may be assumed from past management. The object now is to make as much out of the railways as possible, and so long as the Government retained the monopoly of the wharf traffic no extra expense would be incurred in times of pressure. The goods could be “worked off” gradually. Government, however are not above the effects of competition, and it would be found that competition in this case would quicken action, and render the convenience of the Railway Department subservient to the interests of its customers. We are decidedly of opinion that it would be opposed to the interests of the community as a whole for the Government to have h monopoly of the haulage. The hardship would be felt the greatest on small shippers. They are the most numerous, and may be said to comprise the whole retail traders of the district. It is contended on behalf of the carters and expressmen that the haulage could be done cheaper by horse labor than by steam. No doubt, in the great majority of instances it could. It is only the bulky and heavy articles which would require to be put into the railway trucks. In fact, it is very questionable if it would pay to put any goods for town delivery into the waggons, except in cases where the sidings were connected with the stores of business men. For the thousand and odd articles which enter into daily use, there will be no occasion whatever to patronise tho railway Department. As one of the petitions stated, giving a monopoly of haulage to the railway would involve unncessary handling and delay. We are certain that in handing over the control of the wharf to the Railway Department, the Harbor Board will not be consulting the interests of the grain merchants, and there is a perfect agreement amongst the general body of tradesmen that the contemplated action will injuriously affect them. The railway, no doubt, is a valuable adjunct to the Breakwater, but it should be home in mind that the latter was not constructed solely to swell the railway revenue. That it will materially increase the receipts on the line there can be no question, and for this the Minister of Railways should be thankful, as enabling him to show a more favorable balance sheet on the working of the lines. But at bottom they are two separate institutions. The railways are owned by the State, of which the people of South Canterbury form less than the twentieth part. The Breakwater ia a local concern, and the cheap and efficient working of the wharf most intimately affects the settlers of South Canterbury. Notwithstanding Mr Ormond’s propositions there is not the slightest prospect of the railways being placed under district control. It is obviously for the interest of this district that the Harbor Board should deal with the railway as if it were owned by a private company. Consideration for the Government in this particular matter is, indeed, of very subsidiary importance. The railway authorities have hitherto not shown much consideration for the interests of Canterbury, else its settlers would not be called upon to pay seven per cent on the cost of the lines, whilst for the colony generally the average is only three and a-half per cent. The Harbor Board should seek to derive the utmost benefit for the district, and should not consider the view# of the Railway Department. The best method of securing the utmost advantage would be to allow free trade in carrying goods to and from the wharf. It is preposterous that Is per ton should be charged for the use of trucks from the wharf to the goods sheds. In many instances the removal of the goods to the sheds would not be necessary. It is no use dragging Lyttelton into the argument, as showing how satisfactory matters are with the wharf under the control of the Railway Department. The circumstances are widely different from here. All exports and imports at Lyttelton must necessarily be carried by rail. In the case of Timaru the great bulk of imported goods will be destined for places only a few hundred yards from the wharf. The difference is of such material importance that we wonder that any person should use the argument referred to. To vest the entire conveyance of goods to and from the wharf in the hands of the Railway Department would simply result in delay and increased expense. If the trade is allowed to fall into its

natural channel, it will be found that the removal of goods to and from the town to the wharf will be secured by the carters, whilst the railway waggons going alongside the ships will suit the requirements of the country districts connected by railway with Timaru. At_ the meeting of the Harbor Board on Thursday, the matter was discussed at considerable length, and its consideration further deferred till next meeting. The Board would have done well if it had refused to entertain the proposal for a single moment. We hardly think that the sub-com-mittee who made the recommendation fully understood the subject.