AUCKLAND'S EXTENDED RIVER LIMITS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 176, 26 July 1911, Page 6

AUCKLAND'S EXTENDED RIVER LIMITS.

(To Vi-.z Editor.) Sir, —I have read Mr. J. K. Kneen's letter in your issue of the l&th inst., and the importance of the matter muse be my excuse for trespassing on your space $,0 repiy to his statements. The extended river lkrats of the port of Auckland, stretching from Cape Colville to Brc&m Hea4 have been in existence from ISC7 up to Jnne last, when the Minister of Marine, 'by a.n Order-in-Goimoil, reduced these Ijmita wjthcait aay apparent cause tP albout Kawau Island. In 1836, a Cpmmieeion of experts, consisting of Captain Allman, Nautical Adviser to the Government, and Mr. Mouatt, Governmept Marine Inspector of Machinery and Surveyor of Ships, was appointed to report on the extended, river limits of the port of Auckland. They recommended that these ljmjts remain as they existed at that time. In 1904, in consequence of renewed agitation from the Seamen's Union, a Royal Commission, consisting of Captain Bollons, of the Government steamer Hinemoa, and Captain Hau.lta.in, of the s.s. Wellington, was appointed to report on the same question. This Commission sat in Auckland from the giith March till the sth April. At the sittings of the Commission, the Seamen's Union ws** represented by Mr. Kneen, the Ship ijaa-' tors' Association by Captain Croncher, of Wellington, and the Auckland shipowners were also represented. A very large number of witnesses ware examined by the Commission, nnd after a, most exhaustive inquiry they reported as follows:—

"After reviewing the evidence, we have come to the conclusion that no good or sufficient reason has been shown why the present limits should be altered; therefore, in our opinion, and from our experience, wo consider the limits, both river, extended river, and extreme river, should remain unchanged." Now, Mr. Eneen, as the representative of the Seamen's Union, says that what they contended for 'before that Commission—'the under-manning of steamers— was tragically verified 'By the QlaymorcKapanui disaster. To say that the Claymore-SJLapanui collision was caused 'by or in any -way contributed to by either o< these steamers being undermanned is a gross misstatement of fact. The accident happened in Auckland harbour, fjetwepn the North Shore wharf and fcb.e North Head, and not in extended river limits at all. On Christmas Eve, 1904, the s.s. Claymore left Auckland about 8 p.m., bound for Waiwera and Warkworth. About %he spie time the s.s. Kapanui ■was in the Rangitoto Channel, inward bound. 'As the Kapanui w-as rounding the North Head her port light went out. The ».s. Gael ■was also outward bound at the came time, being a short distance ahead of the Claymor? The Kapanui passed the Gfoel on ths starboard side, and was shaping to pass the Claymore on the same aide when suddenly, through some unaccquptsJble impulse, the master of the Kapamii port- j ed hip helm end endeavoured to cross, the : Claymore's tow. As kis port light >r*s. still out the maeter of the Claymore could not make out what the Kapanui'* movement was and could only step his vessel. Unfortunately, the Teasels 'ipere ; too close together this thne, and ; the Claymore struck the Kapanui on the port quarter and Rank her. Eaeli . of the masters was at the wheel of his ; respective steamer, aad had there been I I a dozen sailors and firemen on board j

each steamer it would not iiave avoided ■the catastrophe. The collision was caused solely by the error in judgment' of the master of the Kapanui, and the question of either of theee steamers being insufficiently manned ■was never suggested. This persistent agitation 'by the Seamen's Union for tlic reduction of the extended river limits ia incomprehensible to the general public, but to any person interested in shipping the cause is not far to seek. On these small steamers trading within extended river limits the Arbitration Court has on three different occasions, when presided over by their honors Judges Williams, Cooper, and Chapman, decided tha-t it was not just or equitable " that overtime should be paid to the sailors and firemen on these steamere. They trade to tidal ports and some also to bar harbours, and the crews' hours are irregular. They cannot work within the ordinary hours, as they muet leave and enter with the tide. The question has been discussed over and over again in the Arbitration Court, and each time the Seamen's Union hae been unsuccessful. This has 'been a very sore point with the union, and seeing that they had no chance in the Arbitration Court they changed their tactics and have tried for years to bring political pressure to bear to either cutTW 0, 1<7 1P f 0 Z Ut thcae limits altogether. 5 V E^ V ? lar S el y awarded by the Minister's present action. d,,^«^ neen ' at $ c end of his 'etter, indulges , n some high sounding language £j£.i c " by U,e Mi P ;st "'s action, secured a measure of the justice his uni?H^ S /?v ffht *>' the public interest, and that they are determined tq fight on until they reee.ve all that is necessary £ v ,V a tt ty ° f the lives of those who W ™ 7 £*** steamers - Now, I challenge Mr. Kneen to giv c a single instance of an accident which has happened to any of the steamers trading within these extended river limits during the last 30 years which was attributable, directly or indirectly, to their being undermanned. The manning scale provided by our Shipping Act very properly does not apply to these steamers. In England, also, no puch a scale is in force. The owners of these steamers have in each of their vessels thousands of pounds at stake and they mann them sufficiently to protect their property and for the exigencies of the trades i n which they are engaged. It would be impossible to frame a manning scale that would meet the requirements of each of the steamers. Apart from any manning scale the law requires every vessel to be sufficiently manned for her requirements and for the safety of her passengers and crew. In consequence of the curtailment of the limits a steamer running to Wlhangarei must now bemanned in the same way as if she were trading to Dunedin or Australia.

The port of Auckland is the only port in the Dominion which has a large fleet of small vessels running to harbours within a short distance of the city. These vessels, both steam and sailing, have played a prominent part in the progress of the port. For some years past, howtfver, restriction after restriction has been most unnecessarily placed upon them, £0 thai the industry is becoming Unprofitable and many of the small pvsrners have been forced put «rf the business. The curtajjnient; of ljmjtg is, liowever, the most serious blow the shipowner has received, TaJve the Ngapuhi, running to Whangarei, a seven hour?' run. She has now to carry four extra h&nds in tjie eugine-ropm. T.he cosj; pf her running 'will be increased by over £500 per annum. Little steamers like the Gael and Kawau have their running expenses increased by about £200 per annum, and they have to carry the same equipment if they were running to the other end of the South Island. This not only means increased working expenses, without increased efficiency, but it curtails the Heated acppmniodation. they have for passengers and cargo. The o\vner3 cannot put on larger steamers, because' larger boats could not work the rivers. Our small scows alqo suffer, as a scow running up to Hobsonville pr to the Thames must now parry the game equipment as if she were sajljng to any port in. New Zealand. Of course, all this additional and unnecessary expense must eventually be borne by the settler, who is already complaining about his fares and freights. The (shipowners and settlers of Auckland have a substantial grievance against lie Government for tins arbitrary and unwajranted action of She Minister of Marine, and it behoves them to unite in such a protest as. will compel the Minister to restore the extended river limits of the port pf Auckland to the position in which they have been fixed for so many years.— I am. etc., M. G. MeGREGOR.