TOWN EDITION. Evening Post. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1881.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 60, 9 September 1881, Page 2

TOWN EDITION. Evening Post. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1881.

A DIRECT STEAM SERVICE. « It will be recollected thatthe joint committee, appointed by the two Houses of Parliament to report on the best means of establishing a direct steam service between New Zealand and Great Britain, made recommendations to the following effect: — That the colony should guarantee interest at the rate of G per cent, per annum upon a capital of not exceeding one million to the cantractor for a 12£ knot monthly service with 4000-ton boats ; that the Government should ba empowered during the present session to invite tenders and enter into a contract. The evidence on which the committee based their recommendations is now printed, and contains several points of much importance, and perhaps some novelty so far as the general public are concerned. Tho three witnesses called were Mr. W. J. M. Larnach, Chairman of the Dunedin Chamber ot Commerce ; Mr. James Mills, General Manager of the Union Steamship Company ; and the Hon. J. T. Peacock, a director of the New Zealand Shipping Company. Mr. Labnach took quite a couleur de rose view of the prospect of buch a steam service if once established, and of its effect on the progress «f the colony. He stated that there was a general teeling, when he was in England twc or three years ago, that tho establishment of a Bervioe of that kind would have a greater beneficial effect in causing a stream of immigration of tho proper kind, in course of time, than even a direct subsidy towards that purpose. Gentlemen well conversant with the colonies whom he met in England, and also in Scotland, seemed to think that, without that ready and certain meaus of communication, which could be worked with safety and comfort for passengers, New Zealand would never get a direct stream of immigration of that class able and willing to pay their own passages. Mr. Labnach further stated that various shipowners whom he consulted required an annual subsidy of .£75,000 to *585.000, guaranteed for three years, for a monthly Borvice of the kind specified. But in the letter received by Mr. Macandbew about that date, from Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Dbknt, two of the shipowners mentioned by Mr. Labnach, they distinctly demand a subsidy of .£8 J.OOO for a two-monthly Bervioe, and guaranteed for eight years certain— a very different thing. Mr. Laknach also says, "In those years I referred to, shipbuilding was certainlymuch more oxpensive than at the present time." On the other hand Mr. Mills, speaking from personal knowledge and experience, stated — in reference to the same period and circumstances mentioned by Mr. Laknach :— " The cost of ship bui'ding has increased cons.derably within the last two years : the price of labour has increased : at the time those letters [of Mr. Uaxbbaii h and Mr. Dbnnt] were written the cost of building was at about the lowest." Now it is quite evident from these astounding discrepancies that Mr. Labnach was really ppeaking off-hand about matters of which he had very little actual knowledge at

a1!.a 1 !. His calculations are proved to be so ridiculously astray, that it is needless to devote any further attention to bis evidence, which waa merely a string of personal opinions, now shown to be entitled to little weight. Of a very different character was the evidence given by Mr. Mills. His was the carefully-considered testimony of a practical man, and hia views were given with remarkable clearness. He prononnced strongly againßt a very fast Bervica as enormously expensive, and advised that only a moderate spee^, 10 or 11 knots, should be aimed at. This would be equivalent to a passage of 48 or 50 days. He pointed out that the calculation of earnings , madd three years, ago by Messrs. Galbrait^ ' and DEnny could not now be relied on, and he gave as instances the " 450 steerage passengers- at .£lB each," and "70 saloon passengers at i*7o a-head each way," which he characterises a3 " quite an excessive calculation." He states that the circumstances a c not so favorable now as then in regard to passenger traffic, and the only improved condition consists in the possibility of a trade in frozen meat, but he adds, " At the present time I do not think a monthly service would get full support." Mr. Mills' evidence as to the ports of call is specially interesting. He said i— " The contractors, whoever they might be, would require to select their own ports of arrival and departure. The vessels could not visit all the ports of the colony each trip. They would require to vary the visiting port 3, so aa to give the different partß of the colony the benefit of the service. For instance, on one trip it might be desirable to visit Auckland, and it might not be possible for the steamer to proceed right to the extreme South on that trip. On another trip it might be mdre desirable for the steamer to Visit the South, and then she (Jould not go to Auckland. One port sometimes would bo the port of arrival and sometimes another port-depending on the place for which the vessel had most passengers and cargo. It might, however, be advisable to vuit Wellington every trip, whether proceeding north or south, as it is a central port, and convenient for transhipment. . . I think the steamers should vary their ports of call occasionally, though it would probahly be advisable to make Wellington a regular port of call. Wellington would be the fixed port, and the others would be changed." Begarding the proposal to guarantee the contractor a fixed rate of interest, Mr. Mills explicitly said, " A guaranteed dividend would not offer any inducement to contractors to rnn the boats economically." It is easy to understand that this may be the case. Several of the large steamship-owning companies just now have their vessels either lying idle or running at a heavy loss. A guarantee of 6 per cent, would be a fortune to them, and they would be amply content td draw_ their guaranteed subsidy without troubling themselves to offer attraction to passengers or shippers, as the receipts from these would not improve their position, and would merely benefit the colony by going to reduce the sum to be paid under guarantee. Nobody dreams that the net earnings would exceed or even approach 6 per cent, on a million, and unless there were a reasonable prospect of this it would pay the contractors best simply to draw their subsidy quietly— to "reßt and be thankful." Returning to Mr. Mills' evidence, we find he made one very noteworthy remark, in reference to the draft of the proposed steamer. He said, " There is no need to study draft at any port except Port Chalmers." This obviously explains the declaration of the Committee in their report (Mr. Macandrew being the chairman) " That ships must be built specially for the New Zealand trade, of a draft of water which would enable them to enter Hie chief ports of the colony." For the words italicised read " Port Chalmers " and wo have the key to the whole. , Mr. Mills pointedly paid '" I have not expressed any opinion as to the desirability of the seivice, but I have stated that the sorvice to bo a success must embrace all ports in proper turn." He discouraged the idea that a direct service -would be used by tourists, as they could see more by going via Australia, and alßo that mails could be c mveyed more speedily by that sorvics, as unless very fast, and therefore enormously expensive, boats wore employed, the mails would be carried more quickly by Melbourne or San Francisco. Lastly, the Hon. J. T. Peacock was examined. He wa3 very clear and decisive in his Opinion that at present the colony has no necessity for a subsidized direct steam sorvice, and was not ripe for it, He stated that passengers could travel by j way of Australia more cheaply than the fares named for a direct line ; that the Stad Haarlem and Messrs. Monet Wigr&m's steamers, which came out to New Zealand during the last year or two, wore " full of passengers and cargo " both ways, but the result was a very heavy loss. He pointed out that Messrs. Galbraith and Denny required not only a subsidy of .£BO,OOO for a two-monthly service, but also a guarantee of 450 passengers per trip, whose fares the colony would have to pay whether there were any passengers or not. He added, "The country cannot afford to give a subsidy for a passeDger or commercial service. If we pay a subsidy at all it should bo simply for mails. The advantages of a direct steam service are not equivalent to cost if largely subsidised. If the colony subsidised a direct steam mail service, Wellington Bhould be the port of arrival and departure, as most convenient for distribution. New Zealand, so far as a direct service is concerned, labours under 1 disadvantages as compared with Sydney and Melbourne, inasmuch a 9 we have so many ports ; the getting to and from each is costly and occupies much time." Mr. Pbaoock doubts whether this colony could send any considerable quantity of frozen meat for some years to come, and he is opposed to committing the colony to a large subsidy till the Panama Cailal is finished. Such are the salient features of the very interesting evidence taken by the committee. We must defer further comment to a future day. —