STUDY IN MATHEMATCS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 66, 18 March 1915, Page 3

STUDY IN MATHEMATCS.

FERRY COMMISSION WOUND UP

HAVE THE FERRIES BEEN OVERCHARGED?

HARBOUR BOARD SAYS "NO."

Today's final sitting of the Commis- | eion which ig inquiring into the new bylaws of the Auckland Harbour Board was mainly devoted to speeches of counsel to hU Honor Mr. Justice Hosking. I Prior to toe commencement of the speeches, Major D. Lusk, president of the Auckland Farmers' Union, said the union was not quite in accord with the policy oi the Harbour Board in that it believed-that the Board seemed to have failed to admit that the rich endowmerts we're for the benefit of the whole province and not merely for the residents in and around Auckland. * While large sums of money had been expended on "wharves and sheds around the harbour, that was not the main function of the Harbour Board, which should be to provide accommodation for the shipping traffic in and out of the port. The country people, who were really supporting the commerce of the country, should have had more representation than they now possessed. The country people, however, recognised that as the money had been expended the Harbour Board was entitled to a fair return. At the same time they admitted that the whole cost should not fall upon the Devonport Ferry Company. The main arterial roads from point to point in the harbour ehould be provided out of general revenue, and a road from Auck- I land wharf to Devonport was undoubtedly a main arterial Toad whiih was required by a large pouplat : on outside ' the inhabitants of Devonpbrt. SHOULD DEPRECIATION *>UXT. Air. McVea«jh's addrese on behai'f of the Harbour B»ard laid emphasis on the question as to whether the Harbour Board should be recefying far less-than wae actually expended on maintenance. The new charges were not designed to recoup the Board for losses of the past. The Board's annual expenditure on the ferry wharves was £2,200. while allowance for depreciation was £1,551. His Honor, interposing, pointed out that if the charges for depreciation were taken .into account the ferry companies would pay for -the wharves in the end.. \ Proceeding, counsel said that the total; annual outlay was £Su.ol, and the.in-, come, under the old ■ charges, £ 1,188,I leaving a deficiency of £2,503 -per .annum. Disregarding depreciation, the shortage was £1,012 per annum. XaturaUy the Board asked how--lonj» that was tocor.tin'ue. The -sum of . £1,012.- -taken at ,4| per cent per interest paid liy the Board on its Joans —over a period of 20 years, wa s £13.164. ( i> LOSS OF .£ 33.000." " • That really represented the amount theBoard would be'out of pocket by adhering , to the former charge's; 'If ■.deprecia/tipn: were, taken into account it would mean that £33.339 would be lost He" submitted that it waS not merely proper, but the undoubted duty of tfhV Board as trustees of the public money to remedy that anomaly. Dealing with- the ■principle the Minister ehould follow in deriding the appeal, Mr. MeVwagh said that jußt as- it was proper that theßoard s'bould endeavour to introduce romeprinciple m tibe readjustment of ths rfrarges, so it was proper"ioT the Governor to pk>> eeed. upon s some'defined principle; ~:Offder: our- present system principle of party .government,: .but the fact that the matter 'had'beeo referred to his/Honor precluded them from. v%uppoeing that sucSi principle was involved in this; caise. Mr. McVeagh argued that ths principle should be that the by-laws framed had no unreason in tlvem. ft was not sufficient reason that two honwt amd capable men came to different ciMichi-s-Jocb; it must be tiwt no two honest and capable men could came to the conclusion that it' was a fa!ir and. reasonable. by-law. The ■ Harbour Board was a fesfelative body vested by. Parlrameufc with itij powers. It' was -elected on an •• extended fraeciise over a large area, .and' it was therefore Hit to "assume. .thai Parliament intended that w<Jig-hty . corisideratkm should-be given to the conclusions the Board, .arrived, at. A body of that description was more likely to' be famili-iT with the local conditions and. needs of the port t&vd the Jliaiiior or even tbe G-overJror. ■ ■ , • ■ -~'. The Judge:' But of courje ore object oi, the veto may be to protect minoritro?. Xo orae is so tyrannous over minorities ac papular majori'tfies. Mr. McVeagh freely admitted that if the by-laws were oppressive in tfcsir operation on mhtorities they would l>e unreasonable, but he proceeded to submit figures showing that every allowance had been made for the' fair objections of "the. Ferry Company. - . -. , WHEX EXDOWMEXTS ARE CONSIDERED. The principle first defined by' the Board was ttoat the charges.should pay, interest on the money expended, but, later, while not abandoning ihe principle, it modified the charges. so-_ that there was only a surplus of £574, or .GOS per cent; over maintenance charges. With regard to the contention that the endowments of the Board should be taken into consideration, Mr. McVeagh'said that these brought in a revenue 6t £25,000 a year —roughly five per cent on £50pjb00. The 'total' revenue' of the Board was £r1<50,275. The revenue under the. new scale of ferry from all sources was £4350. Adding to that sum the proportion of endowment income due, to it the total became .£5300, so that' the excess of revenue over expenditure on ferries was £1250; That.sum taken upon the total, cost of. construction, £98,000, was 1.27 per cent. The money of. the Board cost. 4j per cent. In conclusion, Mr. McVeagh pointed out : that the revenue of the Board had been seriously depleted.by:the commandeering of toats for troopships, and contendeu that every serious consfde'ration had been allowed for by "the Board in arriving" at the charges. CASE FOR ;<THE. SHOREU."" Mr. Ji C. Martin, counsel for. the North Auckland 'Municipal Association, pointed out that the North Shore people were one of the constituent elements of the district, and had the right to have their position tept in view. Under the ■ regime of the old scale of charges the > North Shore had developed to its present condition in Tegard to population and class Df people. In. consequence of the big echeme. undertaken by the Board in its own interests, and those of the general community, the North Shore people had been told that they must use the new and expensive wharves erected by the Board in connection -with the echeme. In view of the fact that they bad been compelled, was it fair to cay that they should bear the cost of that expensive scheme! The Board had loet sighj of the i interests of the North Shore people, as the controversy,,had been confined to the ferry company" and the Board—what i should the ferry company pay, not what

would be the probable effect, .on .th» public. Elaborate facilities .had;; peen provided .against- the* wishes»of»the itorth Shore peop_le, who had no say IB the matter, and the- mere fact that they had to come to Auckland to earn, their bread and butter gave' them 'no r option" but t» accept the faciljties._ t _ t . CASE FOR THE COMPASY. Mr. M. G. McGregor, counsel for the Ferry Company", submitted that the bylaws should be disallowed in that t.ie Board had . ,iui'ljenliEely erroneous principle_ui tiiat it had endeavoured to obtain for itself a sflare ot the profits earned by tiie lerry company. This was borne out by the Boatd'S report that the company could easi/y bear the new charges. The guiding principle had undoubtedly meant that, th* Ferry Company was making large profits, part, of which should, go into, the.coffeja of the Harbour Board. The waa unreasonable, in that it inflicted sis times tthe amount-charged to - other shipping. ... ..,-. , •..,......,-» A PRINCIPLE-SUGGESTED. ; He submitted that toe utmost ".tfie Harbour Board could justifiably exact would be Jd per ton,per wharf..per.jlay. By adopting- that principle very many anomalies would be removed. The r Ferry Company would not>ttien pay for berths ;t did not occupy, or for structures for future use, and the residents of the Ncrth Shore would, not ..penalised because some persons induced the Harbour Board to erect facilities like the Bayswater wharf. Under that principle the total sum received for - wharfage would be £ 1630, and in addition the Harbour Board would receive ■ the ordinary dues from.goods which . were chargeable.