RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 September 1919, Page 8

RAILWAY COMMISSION.

arranging supplies of coal. DEPARTMENT HAD NO FREE HAND ; INTERESTING EVIDENCE. Telegraph.—Press Aasociltion. Wellington, Last Night. The Railway Commission resumed its sittings this afternoon. Robert Atkins, chief clerk m the locrmotive branch of the chief mechanical Engineer's office, said he had the business of obtaining coal supplies for the Department. ■ Witness produced a statement showing the quantities of West Coast and Newcastle coal received. They Were as follows: 1913-14, 239,950 tons: 1914-15, 238,594; 1915-1(3, 259,046; 1916-17, 204J854; 1017-18, 206,213; 1918-19, 243,626. That brought the position down to what it was v on March 31, 1919. On April 1, 1913, there were £0,221 tons of hard coal on hand, and the quantity on hand on April 1, 1919 was tons. The position at April 1, '1914, and at the same time each year down to April, 1, 1919, was as follows: 1914. 63,667 tons; 1815, 47,503; 1916, 40,175; 1917, 44,455; 1918, 24,874; >1919, 30,703. On July 2, 1919, the Department had 9560 tons «on hand. The coal com Mittee took charge of the distribution on October 4,1917. For the four weekly periods ended October 13, 1917. the reserve stocks of coal was 32,579 tons. ?rom early in 1916 until October 4, 1917, tKe Department received its coal through the Department of Munitions and SupSlies. , The Department was rationed y fhe-CoalJrade Committee, which <over and over again was impressed with the absolute necessity of keeping up supplies of coal. The same course had beta followed with the Munitions Department from time to time. The Railway Department did not always receive the quantities of coal required from the Coal Trade Committee. On January 30, 1918, there were 45,901 tons of West

Goatt short delivered. The Coal Trade , I Committee • had diverted to other industries coal which had been previously . Allocated to the Railway Department. The gas companies received a good deal of coal, which had been diverted. Jje often had been asked to permit the diversion of coal, b"ut had refused to agree. Various cargoes of coal were arranged lor from overseas, but on many occasijns * / tie-Railway Department did not.receive the full qilantity ordered, although it ,lmd arranged for supplies itself. Mr< Myers: Supposing you were not required to obtain coal from the Munitions and Supplies Department, could you have -obtained supplies outside • fOr the Railway Department?—We cquld. Had the Railway Department f not been rationed by the Munitions De--1 partment ,the railway services would not nave stopped. I could have got all the coal required, to run a full time-table. Mr. Sfyers: There were other industries requiring coal? Witness: The railways are the lting industry of the country. Mr. Myers: Quite right, but we may assume that if you had been making your own arrangements other industries would have suffered!— They might not. Some industries in New Zealand use the best Newcastle coal when lignite would do, They use first-class Newcastle coal fa stationary boilers, for instance, in-

ftead of leaving the dearer coal for the U9e of the railways. Some of the in- ' dustries which could use'lign'.te coal pre- . ' fer to buy. tjie 'best coal. > Mr. Myers: Did you always inform j the Munitions Department when you * were getting coal from overseas ?—No; I have bad many hundredf of tons of coal landed in New Zealand that the Munitions Department knew nothing about. Mr. Myers: Did vou find, anv of thf'o shipments nn the Munitions Department Jist?—Oh, yes; they all went on their Jist as soon as they heard of them. To the chairman, the v.-itness said he had been arranging for coal supplies since 1898. Among the shipments of coal received by the Department was ± 8000 tons of naval coal in 1017. Wli T e it' came from he did not know, but it •was the most awful rubbish the Dep-irt-teent had ever obtained. It was sotneTOles called Jajtenese coal, but. the lis

' partraent did not know whether it came from Japan. Somebody in the Govrrnt ment ordered it, and it took about a , year to deliver, but it was so bad when < it arrived that the Department would not take it. It was worth about 7s fid fer ton, but the price charged to the Railway Department, was ."Us per ton. The chairman: Up to IDI7, the Railway Department did not order coal from America or Africa?—Xo. v Hu\;e t you ordered any since?— Yes. T ' am will be the first shipment of American coal ordered .by th» Railway Department. All. the other American coal has been ordered by the Munitions De-

partment, through the High Com-

jnissioror. \ Have you ordered any Durban coal?—

You have had nothing to do with any -foreign orders, except tiiis?—\*o. That is the only.one. would not have touched that except that v.v iM<?e a better deal than the High Commissioner eoj/d have done. I suppose, half a loaf is better than no buend. If your stork;; were down to 20,000 ton.?, as they were in 1910. I suppose you would be glad to take anything that would burn?— Yes. But it is no use buying coal half of which drops through tJie firebars, and half goes up the chimney. It takes half a day to get #team up with some of it. Incidentally, -it causes rioting among, the engine drivers and firemen, who complain about it getting into their eyes and clothes. Yes, but reasonable coal does better than tliat.—There is some reasonable coal that could have been got from .America had steps been taken to get it. '•• To Mr. Marchbanks: Durban coal has been offered to the Railway Departbut the price was too high. More coal could have been got at a price. Every ton of Newcastle coal that had. teen offered tothe Department had been accepted. Also every ton of Westport coal and lignite. One small shipment of Newcastle coal, about JWItl tons, had been-declined as the freight asked ( £3 IS9 per ton) was deemed to be too high. Every bit of space offered by the overseas shipping companies for carriage of coal had been accepted. In reply to Mr. Hunt, witness said the Munitions Department would not al-low-the Railway Department to stock up supplies of coal. When war began -there were ,55,<DS0 tons of coal on hand *nd plenty of stocks were in sight. , If the Munitions Department had left the Railway -Department alone the ' latter Deparment could have Mb jUI the coal it wuted.

Mr. Hunt: Did. the Monitions DepartXBB&t stop you from engaging freight!— ,®W. ss} sfcg flenertl Maaa£<£ «jer dis«

approve of your arranging for freights? —No. He always approved of what I did. You could have arranged freight if you had liked?— Yes. The Munitions Department would not have stopped you?— They would have interfered. They had power under the regulations to take coal from us. If we arranged freights we would have been paid for it. The only risk you would run by engaging freight was that you would have lost the coal?—We would have lost the coal and the freight. We did not order coal from' overseas because they could have taken it from us. You could have' got freight and coal but did not do so because you thought the Munitions Department would take it? —No; the Munitions Department are responsible for supplying the Railway Department with coal. Anything we might have done would have been outBide their arrangements. The whole responsibility of supplying coal to the Railway Department rested on the Munitions Department. The Railway Department takes no responsibility for the supply of coal. If you had not been subject to interference by the Munitions Department you would have stocked up above the normal quantity?—Wa would have done so. What I want to find Out is whose fault it was you did not stock up?— The Munition? Department for interfering; The chairman: Have you had any instructions as to what stocks to keep in k hand —No. I have had no instructions, but I have had a lot of evoericnce, and 1 consider 50,000 tons of goal is sufficient stock if you have coal in sight. What I mean by coal in sight is coal that would materialise in a month or six weeks, Fifty thousand tons is about ten weeks' supply, and if coal is arriving in four weeks time 50,000 tons is sufficient stock; to have in hand. I had no instructions. I always acted on my own judgment. Mr Blair: You complain of interference by the Munitions Department. Has it ever struck you they had a duty to perform, the duty of allocating coal according to national requirements?— ' Yes.

You were only concerned with the matter from the railway point of view? —That is so.

In reply to»further questions, Mr. Atkins stated that in. extreme cases tSfi Railway Department had refused to carry coal when it had been Tefused supplies. Mr Blair: If the Railway Department had been left to do as it choose without any possible restriction it could have had all the coal in the Dominion and the rest of New Zealand could have 'gone whistling.—That would'have killed itself.'"

In your evidence, you said the Munitions Department let all this good coal fro to burn in stationary engine boilers and for domestic uses. Have you any documents to support that statement?— I complajned to them many times. I.know, but can you give any instance of where that has been done? —Yes: the Chelsea Sugar Works -burn nothing but Newcastle coal, although their stationary engine boilers will burn lignite coal. 'JM engineer says he cannot burn anything else than Newcastle coal, but at one time they burned nothing else but Hikurangi coal. Have you any idea what proportion oi the total hard coal produced in New Zealand the Railway Department got before the rationing system came into force, and what proportion they got after?— Yes, but I am not going to speak to that from memory. "Mr. Blair: I suggest the proportion was 11 per cent, in ISII4, that the Railway Department got 11 per cent, of the total hard coal produced in and imported into New Zealand.—Of -course I do not know what is the total quantity of coal firoduccd and imported into iJew Zeaand, fo I cannot contradict or confirm your statement. Mr. Blair: Would it astonish you to know jthat in the first eight months of fhe current year the Railway Department got 1!) per cent., compared with 11 per cent, ill 1014? Witness: Well the cut shows you that that is not enough. Would it astonish you to know that the Railway Department got 17 per cent of hard coal in 1918? I cannot say one' way or the other.

Assuming these figures were correct, can you suggest that the Railway Department has been hardly treated s6 far as its proportion is concerned? —I am of .opinion that the Railway department has been harshly treated. The general manager' has been inundated with offers of coal from all over the country. The people who made those offers got coal from the Munitions Department, and had coal to spare.

You state, that coal had been offered to thp Railway Department by the Munitions Department at a prohibitive' rate. Do you'remember the Munitions Department offering you coal in a vessel caUpd the Georgina Keif at a freight of GOs e ton?— Yes.

We suggest that the coal was offered to the Railway Department and refused —Ir was otic-red to the Department at 10s per ton over ordinary freight.

Is that too much?—lt is pretty rotrgh on 4000 lons. *

Replying to Mr. Myers. Mr. Atkins sftid that in case- chere cargoes had been refused the reason was solely because tha price asked was prohibitive or unreasonablo.

The commission adjourned until Satur day.