THE CHEAPER POUT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 47, 24 August 1911, Page 3

THE CHEAPER POUT.

COMPARATIVE CHARGES. AUCKLAND AND WELLINGTON. MR. C. W. JONES'S ATTITUDE. When the question came up before the Wellington Harbour Board last evening of resuming the adjourned consideration of the secretary's report on the comparative charges to ships in the ports of Auckland and Wellington, Mr. C. W. Jones proposed at once that the board should go into committee. "I do not want," he said, "to run down Wellington." The board decided, however, to deal with the matter in open meeting. Mr. J. C 4. Harkness, who moved the adjournment of consideration of the report, resumed the discussion last evening. He said there were two points to be noticed: first, as to whether the Wellington Harbour Board in ita charges wae cheaper than the northern city for ships ; second, wae it cheaper for' consignees? A matter of this kind, Mr. Harkness was of opinion, should not h*ve been taken up. They could afford to let Auckland affirm it wa-s the cheapest port in New Zealand. Wellington could afford to ignore any such attempts, whether made by Auckland or any other port. Auckland Harbour appeared to l>e cheaper for large vessels than for .small for the reason that the large steamship companies had staffs of men in Auckland for handling and delivering cargo. The chairman (Mr. R. Fletcher) stated that consignees brought down their own raeft to handle goods. Mr. Sarkness mentioned also that the companies kept tally clerks to keep goods from being lost. A Member ! Or stolen ! (Laughter). Mr. Hindmarsh : I hope that is not a permanent charge. • A MORE RAPID DISCHARGE. " Mr. Harkness : It has been permanent for some time now. Continuing, Mr. Harknes^ declared that there was a more rapid discharge of cargo here than hi Auckland. Mr. Jones j Where is there a more rapid discharge? Mr. Harkness! Here. Mr. Jones : Not much t It is not so in my trade, anyhow. Mr. Harknesfl; I think so. Mr, Jones; I don't care to discus* this question, in public, I don't want to run down Wellington. There are reasons why I don't join in the discussion. The chairman explained that the statement mad© by the Auckland Harbour Board had been sent to all th© boards in New Zealand. It was sent to business men also. He had seen it in- the hands of a number of_ business men. He therefore thought it necessary to make a reply. There could really be no comparison. Ths porte and the methods were very different. His own opinion was quite settled on the matter. It was & question whether the loss of eoods did not counterbalance. rebate© on freight. Though the lost goods were paid for on net value, the profit was lost to the consignees. Mr. P. C. Freeth observed that the problem was apparently insoluble; so it was not worth while discussing it further. The matter then dropped.