CLOSING THE DOCK.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 68, 20 March 1915, Page 10

CLOSING THE DOCK.

. (To the Editor.} connection with this subject there has been so many remarks- and statements ahdut "vested interests" that public curiosity has been aroused. I would like particularly to refer to those remarks of Mr. P. Virtue, a mem--ber of the Board, which appeared in the Press some little while ago. He tells us that the opposition to the destruction of a £60,000 dock is raised by "vested interests." Is it not time this bogy was unveiled to the public gaze? Let Mr. Virtue tell us exactly who are these "vested interests," and let us see the horrible menace from which the Harbour Board (and Mr. Virtue) have so valiantly protected us. Is everr shipowner who wishes to dock his vessel, and spend money in repairs and overhaul a "vested interest"? Is every shipwright who employs men in the. dock, and thus benefits the community, a '•vested interest"? And is every one who profits by the destruction of "a £60,000 dock (I quote Mr. Virtue's figures) a '"vested, interest , "! ' ■ . 3y all means let Mr. Virtue tell us who .axe the "vested interests" he refers to; perhaps the public can add a name or two to his list. Going on to the earning capacity of the dock, which Mr. Virtue gives as £200 or £300 a year. These figures, I believe, are much below the correct-amount, which I believe is.nearer £1,700; but, supposing them to be the correct amount of duos earned, can the earning capacity of the dock *o the city be gaugwl by this amount? To give the amount of dues it earns is not giving the dock's earning power to the city. Into account must be taken the wages of the men employed in overhauling vessels- and-Sthe money spent in the city warehouses for refitting, etc. And is it to be taken as a.fundamental principle that in public concerns each, separate unit must pay its way? I think not. If so, 9omeM)f ounrailways, for instance, would .have, to r stop running. And do otir fizie.-wJiarveSj of which we are- so justly proud, pay their way, taking them, separately; and, coming to the question of docks, does the Calliope Dock pay its way? Again, I think not; but nobody suggests closing it for all that. Whether these things pay separately or not is not the question. Their importance lies in their attracting shipping to our port, and if they'do that they pay. If the Harbour Board were a conrmeTeial concern it would be different. Mr. Virtue, as manager of a concern existing to pay its ' shareholders as big a dividend as possible, forgete this, sod takes his divi-dend-earning propensities into the Harbour Board with him. Mr. Virtue says that he and the Board have no axe to grind. This' is a question - he does not do well to raise: The shipping interests realise that the Auckland Dock is now-closed, and it is a serious set-back to Auckland as a refitting port. That the Calliope Dock has been occupied ten, six and five weeks at a time is a "fact," and not ah "if," as Mr. Virtue puts it. And even if the slip has a capacity of 600 tons, none of the Board's champions has yet told the public what is to become of the shipping from 600 to 2,000 tons that was refitted in the £60,000 dock now closed. —Ajtd, after all, Auckland. City,_ which i multiplied its population about four timee ' during, the last 42 years, does owe something of that to the small and moderate shipping; therefore, the tsliipw* rights

! ported in their endeavour to get tbe mucb-needed doxjc re-erected, but for so doing they have objections to being called I agitators.' In conclusion, I would ask Mr. Virtue to whom he refers as the "vested interest I bogy" J —l am, etc., 1 ■ , ■ . WJf, ROSS. I