TIMARU HARBOR BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2500, 9 May 1893, Page 3

TIMARU HARBOR BOARD.

At the next meeting of the Tirnaru Harbour Board (on the 17th in at), the board will be asked to consider the following special report of the standing committee “on Wharfage and Shipping Dues,” in terms of Mr Manchester’s resolution, 19th April 1893. « We beg to.report that we have gone carefully through our scale of wharf dues and have compared our, port dues with those in force at .the principal ports in New. Zealand and have also asked the secretary to state his experince of any complaints received regarding our charges. “ Special consideration has been given to coa 1 , through Mr John Jackson asking a reduction on wharfage, alleging that the flour mills, freezing works, factories, gasworks, etc., were ‘ heavily handicapped ’ in competing with similar industries. We find that the cost from ship’s side both on native and Newcastle coal to the mills here is 3s 64 per ton, to the freezing works sa. At Oamarp the charge to the mills is also 3s fid. The cost from ships side at Lyttelton to the mills in Christchurch and Addington is 3s 64 native, 4s fid Newcastle; to Belfast 4s natiye, 5s Newcastle; to Islington, 3s IQ4 native, 4s lOd Newcastle ; to Kaiapoi 4s 8d native os 30. d Newcastle ; to Ashburton 9s 3d native, 11s 7d Ti,r, "“ u to Ashburaoti, 0; native, 12s Newcastle Ip further elucidation of alleged ‘ serious draw back ’ to industries herfi we wopld ;dd that the w w i(i prqdqce fro n to Uyttpltqp is 4s 2d, at 9 We are of opinion that the wharfage pn coal is an exceedingly equitable impost, as almost every household iu the district uses more or less sea-borne coal, and in this way is compelled substantially to support the upkeep of the harbour, the charge falls as evenly as the harbour rate itself.

“Grain has also had our special attention, proposed reduction of Qd ton wharfage on wheat, oats, and barley, would entail an estimated loss of £650 on our revenue, and to make up this loss we would require to ship about 5600 tons iqqre wheat yearly from WaififtQ and Ashburton, the wharfage on •«hich and the port dues from the four extra sailing vessels required to take the 5600 tons, away, making together £650. I’he cost gn grain from Ashburton to

the ship at Lyttelton is 10s5d, toTinmru 10s 6d ; from Waihao to Oamaru, 7a 4d ; to Timaru, 8a 4d; from Waitaki North to Oamaru, 6s 4d ; to Timaru, 9s Gd. “Although favourable to the general policy of easing the wharfage on raw grain, we offer no assurance that such reduction will have the effect of diverting 5600 tons from Lyttelton and Oamaru harbours. The quantity of grain railed direct from Ashburton to Lyttelton for 12 months is 14,729 tons, and if we secure

a little over one third of this quantity for our port, then our gross revenue would not suffer by reducing the wharfage rate.

“ We have gone through the wharfage rates on all our exports, and are of opinion that the only export which has an undue advantage over the others is frozen mutton, at a half-penny per carcase. “We are of opinion that any a:: ion materially reducing wharfage dues and thereby probably decreasing our revenue should be preceded by a general expression of willingness on the part of the ratepayers to an increase of the harbor rate.

“ We recommend that the question of reducing wharfage rates on wheat, oats, barley, and potatoes to Is per ton, and in creasing frozen mutton to three farthings per carcase, be discussed and fixed at the October meeting of the board, alterations, if any, to come into force Ist January, 1894. Our estimates of revenue and expenditure have been framed on present wharfage rates being kept in force throughout 1893. “ With regard to port dues, after careful examination, we are satisfied that our charges compare favorably with those at similar ports, and we cannot suggest any alterations or concessions to the shipping at the expense of revenue. “ Complaints from captains and shipare loud and frequent about the cost of getting rid of ballast, and we recommend the discussion of the following scheme whereby the sailing fleet arriving in ballast will save about £520 per annum without impairing our revenue. The scheme is to erect a small wharf at the North Mole at an estimated cost of £430, to enable this important class of traders, which gives the principal employment to our tug, to discharge their ballast free, without intervention of the Railway Department or the Taniwha; the sand to be tipped into the sea across the mole, and the atone to be tipped on the top of the mole, to heighten and widen the same. An average of 13 vessels annually come in ballast, with about 400 tons each, 8 with sand and 5 with stone. To get rid of this costs 2s per ton, or £4O to each vessel, not a penny of which goes into the coffers of the board. We value the stone for the purpose of raising and widening the mole at 4a per ton, or £4OO, now yearly lost to the board ; total saving per year by the adoption of this scheme, £920, besides relieving the pressure on the berthage space during the busy season and permitting the Taniwha to prosecute her legitimate work. Your committee would add that if wharfage is ever required at the North Mole, it will become absolutely necessary to heighten same, and that 4s per ton is a fair value for the stone which will be required for that purpose.— (Signed) D. Stuart, J. Talbot, J. Hill G. Stumbles.