WILL PAY MORE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 65, 17 March 1915, Page 6

WILL PAY MORE.

FERRY COMPANY AND THE HARBOUR BOARD. JUDGE HOKKING'S HINT. EVIDENCE FROM THE COUNTRY. Further evidence was heard by the Harbour Commission this morning, when Mr. Justice Hosking again eat in the Chamber of (ommcree. Paul M. (Hansen, a director of the Ttakapnna Tramway Company, staled that the capital of the company warn £73,000, 4:1,000 ordinary shares and 30,000 delwnturos, and no dividend was paid. He explained the various fares charged by the compainy. At the beginning the company protested against the j proposed charges of the 80-aird. which I would have been ' £530 against £42, but after the rexlucitinn to about £213 they jhad taken no further steps. I Replying to Mr. McVeagh. witness said his company had approved of the charges , because it was the best .thing they could do. .Spread over the million passengers carried per year by the company the charges .represented a very small increase. Answering Mr. M. fi. McGregor (counsel for the Ferry Company), Mr. Hansen | admitted that the Harbour Board had treated tbe company generously during recent years, and that they had not bceh asked ito pay any part of the cost of dredging the channel followed by the bout. IVior to the new charges coming into operation, Ulic eompan}' was paying £00 per amnum for 21 years for privilege of running over the reclamation at Bayswaiter. and since acquiescing in the now charges the comI pany had been released from those 1 olKiTg»s. This, explained witness later, in response to Mr. R. McVeagb (counsel, with Mr. K. Ruvwell, for the Harbour Board) was in consequence of an application by the company, pointing out that tile oust of tho reclamation was included in the original cost of the wharves, and that the company had already contributed a large sum of money to this improvement. A HAMILTON PROTEST. Arthur Edward Manning. Mayor of Hamilton, said that the matter had been discussed by tile town clerk and the Chamber of Commerce, and those bodies were of opinion that tbe country people who paid duos on goods should not be exploited for the lienefit of the people of Devonport or of a private company. Hamilton was the centre of a big dairying district, and consequently a large sum was paid by the farmers and residents generally in dues. Asked by the Judge why the feirry companies should be treated upon a different b-.usis than othcT shipping companres. Mr. Manning held tlitit the ferries should be treated merely from a financial system, and should be charged a fair interest on the ivist of construction. His Honor: But why shouldn't other companion be charged in the same way! Witness: I believe they are. His Honor: As a matter of fart they aire not, unless you take the charges on goods. >IR. BOND NOT INSPIRED. Mr. .J. S. Bond, representative on the Harbour Board of the counties of Waikato and Raglan and the borough of Hamilton, who was unable to give evidence before the Commission owing to illness, forwarded a statement. In this he said that he was elected four years ago, and on joining the Board he found that many of the works that liad been undertaken were of a semi-municipal and non-productive character. As a particular case in point, it appeared to him that the Bayswater wharf and Takapuna tramway was largely promoted in the interests of land speculators, and he felt that the Harbour Board's funds should not have been used without a guarantee of a satisfactory return on the capital cost. He then began to look ' into the question of the revenue received from the ferry companies, and ultimately moved for a return. The return, he declared, showed that be was entirely justified in his action. It disclosed the fact that the Board wag not receiving a single penny for interest on the capital expenditure, and only a small percentage of the cost of cleaning,' lighting, and maintenance. "For the Board to tolerate the continuance of. such a wtate of affairs would amount to ' a public scandal," continued Mr. Bond's statement. "My only objection to the new scale of charges is that it is in- \ sufficient." Mr. Bond repudiated the suggestion that bus action had been inspired by the chairman of the Board, adding that it was prompted by A strong feeling that private and munii cipal interests were receiving concessions ' that, were detrimental to the interests, of the country districts. As the coun-1 j try provided practically the whole of ' the exports of the port, country settlers, bad a right to fair and equitable con- I I sideration in the levying of charges. With regard to the contention that additional revenue was not required by the Board, Mr. Bond said that Ptiis was not so. &s tbe Board was in need of money for urgent works, snch as the reconstruction of the Onehunga wharf. Numerous other works bad been held | up for want of funds. THE SYDNEY PRINCIPLE. | William E. Hutchison, deputy chair- ! man of the Harbour Board, said he had recently returned from Sydney, where ■be had made inquiries in regard to the management of the Harbour Trust's wharves. The chairman .had stated that the principle upon which the Tnwt based the minimum charge wng 4 per cent on the Government valuation of the land, and 8 percent on improvements, and plus the cost of sweeping, lighting, and general surface maintenance. The Auckland Harbour Board had not taken into consideration the cost of the land. At this stage Mr. McVeagh put in several returns compiled by tne Harbour Board at the request of his Honor. One iof these, giving figmres relating to the earnings of the Northern Company's ■wharf, showed that this company paid an 11.4 per- cent return on capital cost and_ 13 per cent on the last valuation, against the 16 per cent return for tjie whole of the wharves. Altogether the company paid £7,264 last year, of which sum £6.600 was contributed by shimjing and goods wharfage. "* 'TEELING THE HORSE'S MOUTH." This concluded the evidence, and his Honor, prior to the addresses of counsel, intimated that on the evidence he would probably say that the ferry companies should pay more than tliey did. What he wanted to get at was what was a fair increase, and, if the principle of charging interest on cost was abandoned, what should be the principle adopted. Ho suggested that the Harbour Board should show why the charges for ferry, vehicular shipping, and other shipping should be differentiated. Proceeding, his Honor said that the sum that had now been arrived at was entirely by a process of "feeling the horse's mouth." There was no fixed principle, and one might have thought that some arrangement might have been arrived at by which the charge could (have been gradually increased instead of fey. a sudden imposition.