HELENSVILLE RAILWAY STATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 213, 8 September 1923, Page 13

HELENSVILLE RAILWAY STATION.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —As a member of the Helensville Town Board, I wish to protest against the inaccurate statement made by Mr. James Stewart, in a letter published in the "'Star" stating that "a public meeting was called by Helensville Town Board to consider the station site." The question was not before the board. In fact a majority of members of the Town Board signed the petition against Mr. Stewart. The farce that is being carried on by persons who are considerablj interested financially should cease, and the town and district be allowed to advance, which Helensville undoubtedly will if those who are responsible for the backward state of affairs existing would take a back scat. The "bogey" behind the petition signed .by the supposed one hundred, "leaving it to the Minister" is simply that the Railway Department had previously been approached, and matters were "nearly" cut and dried to put the station just where Mr. Jas. Stewart wanted, tout the residents woke up and signed a petition six times as large against it. At present we have to cross four sets of railway lines to get at the Hclensville goods sheds, and two sets of rails to reach the platform, a proposition from the residents' point of view most unsatisfactory, and the two railway stations at present, being within half a, mile of each other is not in the interest of the Railway Department. — I am, etc., RALPH STEWART. BENEFITS OF SHIPPING TRADE (To the Editor.) Sir, —It -roae with a. succession ot proud thrills that I read in your issue of Friday last an article, headed "Ship Ahoy," the writer of which discoursed bravely on the ibenofits reaped by the "fortunate community" of Auckland, from the visits and presence of mercah tile and warships. My mouth watered as I read each succulent item of profit — £375,000 a year disbursed by merchant ships that visit our harbour, not including £100,000 annually spent by them on N T ew Zealand coal, or the "many thousande" scattered about by their shore-going crews! Then, in addition, the naval station and its personnel add the munificent sum of £200,000 a yearall "flowing into the coffers ol our citizens." And, on top of all this, the coastal and intercolonial steamers "spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in ordinary disbursements and hundreds of thousands more in coaling and wages." Happy, happy, happy Auckland! Fortunate community, to receive such rich benefactions!- No mention was made of the Customs duties collected from all these ships—possibly because that form of -'benefit" %vent to the Dominion as a whole. Taken altogether, it would serm that the wealth freely bestowed by tho ships entering the port of Auckland mUBt be about a million and a half per annum. And Auckland is only one of many ports where ships distribute their bounty to New Zealanders. Why, then, is not the Dominion happy and contented? Why are we losing money by our railways? Why is the voice of the unemployed heard in the land? Why are so many farmers going bankrupt? And so forth, and so on. And Echo can only answer . Why? Pondering the reason of this "whyness", I soon found that my thrills of gladness had been rather premature. Brief reflection satisfied mc that the shipping, so far from being a benefit, is a heavy tax upon the community. Can anyone, for more than a passing hour of happy illusion, believe that shipowners are millionaire philanthropists? Not on your life! These men are out for profit, and in normal times their profits are immense. They do not pay a penny of the money disbursed on wharfage, harbour dues, pilotage, cranage, ships' provisions, sailors' wages, earnings of wharf labourers, and cargoes of coal. All this is "passed on" by the shipowners, just as surely as the Customs duties are "passed on" by the merchants. Who then, pays? It is the public—the multitudinous, stupid, consuming public! It is this public that pays for those very ships, and for the splendid wharves erected by the Harbour Board just as surely as that same public will pay for the waterfront railway, if ever it is constructed! If anyone marvels why silks, millinery, whisky, shirts, boots, and motor cars are so dear, let him calculate how much he must pay to the ships that bring these articles—all of which might be produced in the Dominion. If anyone wonders at the presence of unemployment, let him consider how, by encouraging shipping importations, we deprive our own people work. And we will cease to puzzle jver the question of why our soldier settlers cannot succeed on the land, and n-'hv so many farmers of experience have to "seek the shelter of the Bankruptcy 2ourt if we remember that the million md a half per annum that shipping and miportation cost us Aucklanders has in the ultimate to be paid out of the primary products of the country, which i, ave to compete with the products of heap labour in other lands. But, says someone, "We must have exchange of irade. and we cannot have this without shipping-" That is so, but let no one lehide himself with the thought that such exchange is always and necessarily i "benefit," save to the merchants, middlemen and shippers. When the Droducer has to accept low prices for his ■xports, and has to pay extortionate prices for imported necessaries, it would !e em that the larger the shipping trade, greater is our loss. Of course, I inow'that shipping adds greatly to our ■onvenience and our enjoyment of uxuries. The point I emphasise is that ye have to pay for all these things. 'Well" (I fancy I hear the retort), "if Doople want these things, where's the iarm?" None in the world. Only don t et us flatter ouselves that we are being ■nriched by the bounty of shipowners, A-hen the very reverse is the case. It is K-e who are enriching the shippers by ,-oluntariy paying double price for the s oods they bring us.—l am, etc. *■ J. LIDDELL KELLY.