TELEGRAMS. PORT CHARGES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25, 29 July 1911, Page 9

TELEGRAMS. PORT CHARGES.

. Ithe auckland-wellington . j discussion. \\t mSQRAPH— SPECIAL TO TH» POSt -5 . j AUCKLAND, This Day. \ The following remarks were made to ■ I reporter by the chairman of the Auck' * \nd Harbour Board (Mf. J. H. Gun* _ j>n) regarding the question of the re- .. iiective port charges at Auckland and ," Wellington. "The official statement from ' ,36 Wellington. Board, as far a* I cart ■ -"lather from the cursory glance which 1 avo been able to give to the question, 1 correct and speaks for itself, and , • * jubstanttates in every way the state- ' 'Kent issued by Auckland, 'which, it is dmitted shows Auckland charges to , , }c lower than those of Wellington. In - he first pluoe, taking Wellington's own jguree where they say that for the rela* ,- T ive service* lendered the average pw ' Jpn on register at Auckland is 2.28, as Wainst 1.95, this is really beside the jnestion, for the point is not the cost , \l the relative services rendered, but |he cost of the vessel in tie aggregate „ ', ft all port charges. While the in- " iividusf charges in Auckland may be '•'•foavicr than in Wellington, yet in the -'fggregafce the ship escapes from Auck- ', # jand with greater decreased charges - ihaii thoso imposed at the port of Wei- , » yngton. The harbour improvement rat«* -jf Wellington fall against the ship, and ifhese obviously are very heavy charges. •iChe issue must not b« confuted. There ire two point*, the first as to the / ; iheapest port of the two from the fchifl- ' ""'fing point of view, and the second ac ■ !|o the cheaper port from the importers' Jwint of view. In the statement) prepared by the Auckland Board the f-mer only was dealt with, and while, 1 have previously mentioned, the eflington, Board does in the way of \ deceiving and handling cargo undertake much work for which the Auckland * Board accepts no responsibility, and '- . Vhile perhaps it may be fairly argued ihat the fact that Wellington accepts * . ii a rg° rottl ship's slings relieves the ' ' - fhip somewhat', it cannot be logically ; reasoned with any fairness that the port Iharges are decreased. That phase of ' ,|he question more fully concerns the ' «wport«r than the ship.* The statement '•- orepared by the Auckland Board con« , eefned harbour dues only and is cor- . ,'J*ct in every detail. The Auckland Board has no wish to* enter into a con- ,' Iroversy with Wellington or any other fjoard in regard to relative charges. The ,' |:tatettient wag prepared for the informal fion of the Auckland Board in connec ' with projected amendments to the , Ipylaws with regard to shipping charges. yt has served its purpose, and the pre-.-'ient discussion has arisen out of it, nut 1 further evidence must be forthcoming ;ipefore Wellington can substantiate the - Maim that it is now putting forward."