Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

INCREASED HARBOUR CHARGES.

PROTEST FROM SHIPOWNERS. A letter from the Cunard Line was received by the Lyttelton Harbour Board at its meeting yesterday, protesting against the Board's decision to increase the present improvement rate from 6d to Is per ton on all goods shipped or discharged from vessels using the port, to take effect from January 'lst next. Ajj a time when it was the earnest desire of all ship-owners to re- | duce running charges in the endeavour to bring down their freights the letter stated it was to be depiored that the Board had increased the improvement | rate by 100 per cent. The cuarge was ' one that it Mas impossible to pass on, and in the present unsatisfactory state of the Dominion's trade, that was the last thirg the line wished to do. In view of the fact that trading companies, producers and ship-owners were all tradin" at a loss,, the Board was asked to reconsider its decision most seriously. Itecent advices from London were that the Port of Londou Authority had lately reduced its charges by no less than 20 per cent., and it was most disappointing that .a similar reduction had not already beon forthcoming from tho Harbour Boards of New Zealand. The Marine Superintendent for the Shaw, Savill and Albion Company also wrote protesting on behalf of the eompanv against tEe increase. Mr H. B. Sorensen moved that a reply be sent that the present exigencies of trade, etc., would no£ permit the Board to alter its decision at present, but that when matters improved the Board would be pleased to reduce the rate. Incidentally Mr Sorensen said that the increase in the rates compared with the increase in shipping charges \as infinitesimal. It was remarked that the Board had not increased the rate during the war, when other charges were substantially In regard to the Port of London, Mr H T. Armstrong remarked that the Authority had put up the rate and had now brought it down again. The motion was carried.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19211103.2.21

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17293, 3 November 1921, Page 4

Word Count
337

INCREASED HARBOUR CHARGES. Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17293, 3 November 1921, Page 4

INCREASED HARBOUR CHARGES. Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17293, 3 November 1921, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert