WOOL DUMPING.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19667, 10 July 1929, Page 17

WOOL DUMPING.

• ro TB2 si-noa c» tax ?*££-' j i Sir, —I have read carefully through j ! the '-Thole of the report in your paper ■ jin regard to the above natter: As ! | tit* representati.-e of the Christchurch 1 Woolbrokers Association agreed at the conference that the members or the Woolbrokers' Association would under- j take that wool for dumping should be loaded ,-.ut of the Chri&tchureL. wool stores, only as it was called for uuring the season by the shipping companies, it therefore follows that we, Leing members of the Association, will certainly do our be»L to carry out the undertaking. I was responsible ior this . t-ry important matxer of wool dumping being brought up, and if nothing more is ever heard of it, I do not think that there are many but will admit that the enquiry has had some results. Nevertheless, in reading the report from end to end, 1 cannot see that the position has altered bpyond the fact that the congestion has" been removed from Lyttelton to the Christchurch stores. (l'i The warehouseman in Christchurch will now have to carry the responsibility of holding the wools during the pleasure of the shipping companies. (2) The dumping in Lyttelton, in place of in the hands of the Harbour Board in the interest of all concerned, is in the hands of private enterprise. The shipping companies have such a far-reaching effect in the way of subsidiary interests that for the time being they command the port in respect to dumping. While they temporarily will not use the trucks for storage of goods in port, they will be in a position to trespass upon the various warehousemen at the Christchurch end for that storage. I can see no great reform in this. I am firmly of the opinion that if it was essential that the Harbour Board should supply cranes and other impedimenta for the unloading of cargo from the companies' boats, the port would be much better served if the authorities took charge of the unloading, and also the dumping, as apparently is done in Wellington. Then the concern would become a live one, and the earning power would surely 6how a remunerative margin. Wool has fallen, and the wheat market seems to be tottering in different parts of the world. No one can tell what next season's wool market is going to be, and no one can tell the extent to which vendors will pass their wool or ship home. It is necessary to provide for eventualities, and with the Christchurch stores congested with wool awaiting shipment, the possibilities of trouble being avoided are not bright. Personally I am of opinion I that the congestion which really should take place in Lyttelton, and which is now transferred to Christchurch, will come about in January and February next year, when the fanner will require his trucks both for his in and out produce, when the warehousemen will have to provide storage for cereals and other classes of farm produce, and when the grower will have to hold his wool during the convenience of the shipping companies. Simultaneously with these difficulties will arise the necessity of making provision for the incoming wool and the displaying of the same. This centre has been an example in the latter respect for years, but with the congestion that the new order of things is likely to create, that distinction is in grave risk of being lost. But the most serious aspect as it affects the grower is this: —Many of the buyers in respect to finance operate on letters of credit and in other ways, and until their bills of lading are available, which will not be until their goods are on the boat and dumped, they find themselves in an acute position. Perhaps they have to visit sales either north or south whilst unable to make payment until their wool is aboard. This delay may conceivably be responsible for causing no end of worry and annoyance to visiting buyers to the Christchurch sales, the goodwill of whom every selling agent is anxious to retain. However fortune on the other hand may smile upon us, and I hope it will, and that the decision arrived at by the investigating committee will prove a profitable _ one. Tn conclusion I would like to say that in your report in The Pkess Mr Walter suggested that I was one of those who had complained. The chairman replied that I was not at the conference. The conference was held in the Harbour Board's rooms on March 18th. I was present entirely at the courtesy of the Harbour Board, and I certainly would have regarded it as an act of courtesy from the Board if I had been included in the investigating committee appointed to go into the matter. —Yours, etc., LEICESTER MATSON. July 9th, 1929.