HANDLING CARGO.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 192, 8 May 1908, Page 8

HANDLING CARGO.

THE CRANES QUESTION. r V AUCKLAND AND WELLINGTON / METHODS. /■ ' INTERESTING DISCUSSION. ■ ; \-}7'\(BT/TELEaBAPn.—SrECIAt CORRESPONDENT.) : : , Auckland,' May 7: Tho proposed expenditure by tho Auckland •••r Harbour Board on cranes for the now wharves was considered at a meeting of tho Railways .and',Shipping and, lmporters' Committees'of - . tho Chamber of Comnicrco yester--1 day. hY'-H : MrrP; Virtuoj as Spokesman-for ai.doputa-i tiori -of . receivers and farriers, whilst- admit- . . ting ithat : ii' few olectric /cranes I might Jb'e cecessary, considered that an expenditure .V • r.mounting to'£so,ooo or. £^30, 000 would bo ■ yextravagant,': as all tho vessels visiting Auckland Jiad up-to-dato hoisting gear. If' ■: ' tho Board invested ,£60,000 on cranea, ho ■ ..estimated-that iVwduld'lo3o aboutv£3ooo a ■ year without malting -.any 1 allowance for de- ■ preciation. Should the steamers' : owil gear not bo sufficient to reach a double row of 'trucks'they should.lengthen their'yafd-aras. If tho Board has so much money to spare it • /i,'mightbe, utilised;by making free i"- ' port,-or something akin, to it. -. . Mr. fA. A. Donald (Wright,. Stovenson,,and Co.) agreed with Mr. Virtue. He thought, half a :dozen cranes would I>g quit© sufficient. Mr.yJ. Miller (Now Zealand Express Oo.) ; ; • considered it rather premature to discuss tho question without full information before them 1 as to how many> cranes it was proposed to place on each wharf. If it were .proposed to have, say, two cranes to each 'shed, there ' ' - would be ten cranes for the. Railway Wharf, ■ and that would not be out of tho way. Mr. L. pointed out that tho ' ■ - Earbour Board had already to re- 1 oonsider th'e matter. ■ ■ . ■Mr.'J. H. Upton ; said the point was whether the crancs .were really Tcquirpdynot what thoy would cost.

V/ELLINGTON ;,, ,• .'- 'Eef erring: to'; the.cranes on the-Wellington' wharves,' Virtue said that the ; revenue from them was about £3500 a year. Taking • the cost of working and - maintenance at a -■■■ low figure; ho could safely say it was £1500, .'leaving a -net >rovenu© of £2000. Assuming' •that/the cranes , cost. this loft a ' return of' about 3£ per. cent, on the irfvestmerit,'■'iwithout allowing,anything for depre- .. ciatiori and their' ultimately becoming _'obso- ■ ■ loto. As the Wellington Board' was borrowing at,4J' per cent., the example, \ in his V ; opinion, was riot one that should be followed. The 'responsibilityfor tho' purchase ;of l tho ' 'V' Wellington cranes restedwith '.Mr;. Ferguson - . (late Engineer toitho Harbour Board), and' they wore commonly known as "Ferguson's lighthouses." . ." : t.-.-i '[■ . ■ i Mr. J. H. Gunson said that if 36 cranes : j ) ■ • were ordered, they could, bo got on reduced terms, but no, doubt a few' only v would bo obtained at a timo, as required. • PRUDENCE:AND CAUTION. ' A resolution for presentation to the . Harbour : Board was passed, expressing the view that,\inder ''the circumstances, tho ' Board, should act prudently. cautiously in the matter of cranes, and should erect only.; . a fpw at first, thereafter adding as might bo ■ 4':absolutely, necessary to the. efficiency.;of, the port, remembering that tho finaricial . 1 tioris" r amounted"to an enorinoiis 'sunT of ■ money, and' that, tho experimental, stage ,in this connection was not entirely past.'' , : REPLY TO MRi WILFORD. • - ■ Writing on the same'subject, in reply to • J , Mr. T. wilford's romarks in Wellington, ~ 'tho local agent for tho Alley Line : says, in ■ connection-with, Mr. Wilford's intorpretiv tion of his previous letter: "I never mentioned anything about tho utility, or other- , , • jviso of cranes, not did I 1 say that .the ■ cranes assisted in the discharge' of the 1 Deri i of Iluthven. Both steamers-were discharged : ■ under -the same conditions.'.: If; cranes had v been used in tho Den of Ruth-yen's'case-1 . naturally woydd have pointed'this out,-par- .. ticularly so if it had been my intention .to >throw a doubt on tho usefulness of cranes, ■ , ■ which Mr; Wilford seems :to imply. • Even ' if the cargo amounted to 2145 tons,'and if there had been a breakdown of the steamer's -'gear, (which--cannot 'have been "otherwise Captain Singer, who supplied the'inv ■ \formation,; -h-ould have riieutioned it), this :'M y; cannot, make: up, for the' difference in'.time. , . Whatever the :cause ,of ithe .disparity;-. the ,■■ • cranes had nothings to do with it:".. A POINT OVERLOOKED; I '' '. • A point that lappears to have been " looked in conriectionV with/the controversy, as to. th& handling of cargo at the, ports of . Auckland and. Wellington, was mentioned to • ..•v a "Herald" representative yesterday by Mr. , ('/ Burgess,, traffic manager r to the Auckland Harbour Board. ■ "We handle the cargo more guickly here;, there :is no question about , ! it,"-he said; "but' thero is a feason for it ~ which I am , surprised to see has not. been referred ..to,by; the Wellington jwople.,' In " . ; Wellington, where the. Harbour Board acts '. ; ' as receiver,; it is . necessary; to- tally out of •' .the slings. Every package';', large'..arid, - . small; < has to;. he examined, and,; ,this, ,of; course,, takes up extra time. :No tallying is" : aono at Auckland before the. cargo goes into the stack, and that is where -we' have the • advantage in. regard i. to/ time;?'.. : Sir. Burgess, also pointed out that, whereas at Auckland' the shipowners' employ, the.jnen- both on the • ship and on tho wharf, it was not so'at • Wellington, those-on 'the wharf being eiiframed by ; the. Harbour. Board, and thip fact riiight, ho said,, also have some bearing •' . ' on-the,question of handling'tho cargo. • ' ■ " ..... \ -- - ..