HARBOUR CHARGES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 15, 18 July 1911, Page 10

HARBOUR CHARGES.

«*» -■-■ , , WELLINGTON AND AUCKLAND. WHICH IS THE MORE EXPENSIVE? The question of which is' the cheaper port to work, Wellington or Auckland, has been resurrected by the local manager of the New Zealaiid Shipping Company (Mr. J. 'H. N. A. Burnes} in a letter to the secretaryof the Wellington Harbour Board. Figures are given which would seem to show that Wellington is ths more expensive. The case of the New Zealand Shipping Company's Paparoa is cited. The charges at Auckland were :— First call, £117 16s 3d; second call, £54 7s 6d. Wel-lingtons-First call, £234 14s 9d ; second call, £90 12s fid. Wellington first call includes a sum of £103 Is for harbour improvement rate of 6d per ton. For Auckland this is given ns nil. Tho chairman of the Harbour Board (Mr. R. Fletcher) states that to thosewho know tho entirely different systems of working in vogue in the two places an explanation is easy. In Auckland there is rto Harbour Board as we understand itj that is, no organised staff of labour for^ the handling of cargo. Here the board takes delivery of, and is responsible fot, the safe custody ol the cargo from the time it leaves the ship's side until it is delivered) to the consignee. In Auckland that is not the case. All the board does is to lock and unlock the shed. The shipping companies discharge their own cargo, transfer it to the shed, and give delivery of it, and yet consignees have to pay ?& a ton wharfage, for what? — for locking and unlocking the doors of the sheds. Thera they have to supply their own labour to transfer the cargo frbm the ship's 3lings to the shed, which cost& at least 5d per ton, another 6d per ton for loading th© same into carts, which makes in all 2s lid, for services which Jtre performed in Wellington for 2» Od per ton ; In Auckland the shipping companies aro held responsible for all ulaims- for goods missing, pillaged, or damaged between the time cargo leaves the ship's slings and its delivery to the consignee. A statement was obtained recently of the experience of one big uteamer which landed 4000 tons odd in Auckland. The claims against the shipping companies amoimted to £370, made up as follow :— Goods entirely missing, £244; pillaged, £93; damaged, JQ3d. The same steamer landed -2000 tons '•.! Wellington, and the claims only amounted to £2 16s Bd. That about represents tho difference in the two systems. In Auckland the shipping company's clerk who tallies tho cargo out of the ship gives delivery of the same to consignee. There is no check, hence tho trouble recently reported from Auckland. Mi\ Fletcher went on to say that the shipping company, in its letter, separates the charges on the ship from those of the shipping company to make tho Auckland charges appear lighter, but that was not a fair basis of comparison, fof the 3hip is merely a chattel of the Company, and the charges must be taken together. On a similar outcry as to th© charges some years ago, it was propos2d that the Wellington Harbour Board should adopt the Auckland system, but the proposal was withdrawn owing to the Opposition. Mr. Fletcher added that Fremantle (W.A.) had adopted the Wellington system, and was well pleased with it,