MAIL SERVICES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 826, 26 May 1910, Page 2

MAIL SERVICES.

WELLINGTON CHAMBER REPLIES TO MR. GUNSON. SAYS HE IS OUT IN HIS FIGURES. On Tuesday morning another long letter from Mr. Guiisou, president of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, to the president of the local chamber (Mr. H. C. Tewsley), in continuation of the mail services controversy, appeared in Tub Dominion. The following is tho local chamber's reply:— "Dear Sir,—l am in receipt of your letter oi the 19th instant, and regret with you that the views of our 'respective chambers are so hopelessly at variance on the subject of ocean, mail services. I may, however, say at" once that I am in sympathy with the unanimously expressed views of the council of the Wellington Chamber. It is easy,, and popular to advocate additional services and facilities, but it is well, while doing so, to consider the cost and probable return of such services. We in Wellington are among those who consider that of late years habits of lavish expenditure have crept over the, State and the community in New Zealand, and that the lime has arrived when greater care and discrimination should be used. ■ Wβ have now a regular reliable weekly ,mail service va Sydney and Suez, which for mail purposes meets admirably the general requirements of the Dominion as a whole. This is shown by the fact that ii very large proportion of the correspondence of the whole Dominion goes by this ronifr. Any mail matter by other routes is comparatively trifling. The cost; as this chamber remarked, is moderate, the subsidy being only, as Sir Joseph Ward stated, about .£IO,OOO. The higher sum includes transport across Australia, from Australia to Europe, and across Europe to London. The comparison with the .£28,500 would be with the subsidy or proposed subsidy by the other route, plus all further charges for transport by land and sea to London. For instance, a 6ubsidy of =£34,000 for a Vancouver service would be in contrast to the .£IO,OOO, not with the ,£28,50!). The <C 2.5,500 would be comp'arablo with the .£34.000, plus the cost of transport of mails across America ajid on to London. • This may be put at a further JEIO.OOO.' To return to the main subject, this chamber is not 'hostile to the Vancouver service and the Auckland call'; it is simply opposed to any lavish expenditure on new mail services, believing- that the country is reasonably well served, and that more urgent needs exist involving. expenditure in other directions, especially in railway construction, as stated in the letter from our chamber. Our advocacy of the East Coast railway is not new. It was voiced in the annual report of the chamber in February, 1909. Prior to that we deemed it expedient to concentrate our influence on the completion of tho Main Trunk lino and the acquisition of the Manawatu line. Those objects having been attained, we now desire to give support to the East Coast line and the completion of the Main Trunk line in the South Island. It appears to us that to be urging on the Government simultaneously several costly undertakings is unreasonable, and calculated to defeat our own objects. It is true as stated in your letter that there was some, years ago a Vancouver service running to 'Wellington. The subsidy in that case was, I believe, ,67500 a year. A service ' may be worth having at that price, and not worth having at ,£34.000. When the contract came: to an end the contractors made a more profitable arrangement, with Australia. It is not the case that this Chamber 'secured the Ta-.' liiti service.' The Chamber iipt only did not ask for it, but knew absolutely nothing about it until the contract was announced as an accomplished fact. I am glad to learn that you are addressing the leading Chambers of the .Dominion on this question, and shall look forward with interest to tho publication of their views. You appear to be singularly misinformed as to the time occupied by existing services. ..The actual time taken . by the mail hence via Suez is 35 to 37 days, not 40 days. . Still worse is your information as to the Tahiti service which you speak, of as a 40.t0. 45 days' run. In ' the 13' trips since January 1, 1903, tho time has only once extended to 40 days, and for that an interruption in the overland railway traffic was responsible. The time for the other 12 occasions varied from 33 to 37.days, an average of 35 days 4 honrs, or seven or eight daysless than your statement. This service is generally looked upon as far from useless. This Chamber have never imnngned the motives of your .Chamber. Do you not. think snch a line of argument is to be deprecated ?—Yours faithfully, H. C. Tewsley, president." PROPOSAL TO SUBSIDISE DIRECT . LINES. With regard to the proposalthat direct lines should be subsidised in connection with the mail services, Mr. D. ■ Eobertson (secretary of the Postal Department) has written to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce as follows:— "1 have the honour—by direction of the Postmaster-General—to refer to your , letter of May 4 expressing the opinion of your CliOTiber that the present weekly mail service from New Zealand to the United Kingdom via Sydney and Suez should bo continued, and that the direct lines of steamers skonld lie subsidised for the conveyance of mails, the timetaken in the journey being accrleraied to, say, thirty-six days. ' In reply I am to inform you that the views of your chamber have been, noted; In regard to the acceleration of tho service by the direct steamers, it does not appear, however, that a saving in the time of from four to six days is of sufficient importance to warrant the heavy subsidy which would no doubt be required." . - '