HARBOUR BOARD'S CASE

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 60, 11 March 1915, Page 2

HARBOUR BOARD'S CASE

IK FERRY CHARGES DISPUTE. ACCESS TO" COMPANY'S BOOKS REFUSED. KNIFE NOT DRIVEN IN. NO CHARGE FOR-INTEREST. The case for the Auckland Harbour Board ■was opened at yesterday afternoon's sitting pi the Commission which is inquiring into allegations as to. the excessive charges made by the new bylaws of the Board, for ferry shipping wharfage. Mr. Justice Hosking is conducting the Commission. Counsel engaged are:—For the Harbour Board, Messrs. R. M_cVeagh aijd E. Russell; for the Devonport Ferry Company, Mr. M. G. McGregor,' fprthe North Auckland Municipal Association, Mr. J. C. Martin; for the petitioners, Mr, T. N. Baxter.

' The judge again declined to accede to i Mr. McVeagh's renewed, application that the books of the ferry company should he open to public examination,' ruling that the profits of the company were not relevant in determining whether the charges were excessive or not.

POINTS OP THE REPLY. The following were the main points of the Harbour Board's reply to the allegations made, as outlined in Mr. McV'eagh's speech to the Commission: —

"There was no hostility to the Ferry Company on the part of chairman or Board, who were solely actuated by public duty.

"The new charges imposed no allowance for interest on expenditureThe annual cost of maintenance was £235, and of depreciation £1551 10/9, total £3,756. The Harbour Board was charging £3,950.

"There had not been extravagance in wharf construction. The Harbour Board naturally had to look ahead. Terrp-conGrete.. would probably -last _IP6 years, it cost less, than' wood, and reduced depreciation charges from 10 to i per cent.

Tor years the. Ferry tympany "bad operated on low charges at the expense of the general public' This was being equitably rectified, and the knife was not 'driven in to the hilt.'

"In improvements and alterations the public and ferry company had been fully consulted. 'Expensive improvements to the channels, etc., had not been charged for.

"The Board was elected on a popular franchise, the new scheme was approved by an overwhelming majority of the members, and the real " question was whether tlie wishes of the people were to be given effect to. The Commissioner intimated that the last mentioned point did not arke in the score of the inquiry, in that considerations which had since arisen might not have been allowed for by the Board. The Judge also pointed out that he was not called upon to report-as to what were fair charges. Still, if he found that the charges were excessive it would be unfortunate if he could not give some sort of a lead.

ENGINEER GIVES EVIDENCE. William Henry' Hamer, engineer to the Board, who was the first witness called, continued his evidence this morning. He testified that when Messrs. Hayes- and Fergusson, the extort who. were called in when the Harbour Board's improvements"'- were * marked, reported they stated that that part of his scheme relating to ..the ferries, if carried but in its entirety, would not be attended by special risk, but that the Devonport boats might bo left where they were'in deference to the wishes of the Devonport people. However, the water On the eastern side was .dredged to a depth of 40 feet for oversea vessels, such as the Niagara. The suggestion that the present accommodation was providing nothing better than before was rediculous. There were now nine berths against, four before. With regard : to the contention that timber wharves would have done as well as fcrro-qoncretc, witness pointed out that the contracts of construction on the latter principle worked out at less per square foot than timber. Witness proceeded to give categorical evidence as to the various works carried out by the Board, and the manner in which the ferry company had been consulted from fimc to time, and acceded to as far as possible. He gave evidence as to the necessity, utility and .economy of the extensions and alterations made on both shores.

WHAT .FLOATING STAGES WOULD HAVE COST-Cross-examined, Mr. Hamer declared, that bad the Ferry Company's request for floating stages instead of fixed concrete wharves been acceded - to, tbey would have, cost at least twice .as .much as the -wharves, which were alleged to have involved extravagant expenditure.

Mr. McGregor: If you had not your harbour scheme in hand and you were reporting for the Ferry Company, wouldn't you be able to provide all the ferry! facilities very much cheaper than-What' they have cost ? , - .

"Mr. "Hamerr'l-would .undertake"to saythat you would not get the whole lot of the work done by'the Board at twice the money. '"-' •' '"" - . 7. '-'..

Mr. McGregors:.-But.co.ttl.d_ you. not..prpvidc the" 1 actual accommodation for less than £90,000 ccould not get ;it for less. ... ! ~ ■„< ~ .■:,. ,

Kcnry Beaumont Burnett, secretary and treasurer to the 7Harbour '. Board, produced ..a. return showing the former and present fate of charges. He had also compiled a statement showing the value of the wharves and .the revenue derived from them in 1913. The value of the wharves,- £87,520,7 was -the original cost less" yearly. deprwiaCpn.,He!"~ateo produced a statement as to the cost of lighting, cleaning; etc. An apportionment had been made on the actual time .occupied by the men jn 7 cleaning the wharves. Further statement* as to revenue from shipping wharfage year by year was also produced and of the amounts that would be paid by the companies under the new charges. .7 .. ....-.-■ . '..•••"• EVIDENCE OF FIGURES. ' -

Summarising the results, the returns showed that in '1913 the Board derived £1,188 from the-ferry At the I time the average annual charge , tsjten I three years, ifbr maintenance and lighting ; and .supervision was £2,205. There" was -no capital e*pen.dituxe , : dn:'.'ibj* ' «sO, . and Vttiis sum showed that rthe compani* paid about one-«xteenth of the whole of die feed .cbjtrgss ?or maanteftanoe: juid working expenses. As. against that the revenue" derived from -tbe' wharves was practically one-half. The basis of depreciation for ferro-con-crete wharves was half, per .pent; and lor wooden-wharves 10 per cent! Comparing the estimated revenue-under the-"new charges with the annual cost of maintenance and depreciation -the Board would get very little'oyer the amount expended. The Commissioner pointed .out ' the depreciation charges would decrease eyeiy jrear, and tbat when new. whaires

not in commission were used there would be added revenue with practically no. increase in the cost of upkeep. To this-Mr. Burnett-replied that the Board were always in the position of having to provide new wharves. Asked by the. Judge what the basis of the new charges.and those abandoned were," witness said that' the first basis was five per cent, on capital cost, which, less cost of maintenance, produced 3 per cent. The system of charging per trip would have produced £5,482; which was actually 5$ per cent.- The next basis- of charging was at 4 per .cent., and produced £4,011, and the present charge represented just tinder 4 per cent, gross On capital cost. EXPENDITURE EXCEEDED. When the Judge, pointed, out thai the late chairman forecasted that there would be no increase in charges, the witness said that although revenue had been more than realised the Board was already years ahead of the expenditure then anticipated. - His Honor drew the attention to.the fact that perhaps no importance might be attached to the company's compliance with the works in view of the statement that charges would not be increased, and to this' Mr. Burnett replied that there was no definite. undertaking that there would be no increase, and the position was merely forecasted. Dealing with the figures adduced by •Mr. Alison, Mr. Burnett said that the valuations stated by that gentleman to exist in the Board's books were underestimated. For instance, the Victoria wharf was said to be vaiued at £3,373. Thiasum entirely omitted, the waitingroom, valued at £618. THE CASE OF WELLINGTON. The-charges in Wellington, continued witness, were much higher than in Auckland. In Wellington a charge of £20 was made for .each. boat, using the city ferry wharves and 2/ per call for every suburban call. Charging the same Tates, (Auckland would make a revenue of £ 4.80b;" : -■-•-•-• ; :■ -Tlie inquiry was proceeding when tne "Star" went *to 7 press.