THE FREIGHT SERVICE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 100, 24 October 1925, Page 13

THE FREIGHT SERVICE

CARRIERS PROTEST

.!'COMPETITION IS UNFAIR."

A deputation representing the Wellington Master Carriers' Association waited upon the Mayor (Mr. C. 13. Norwood) yesterday to bring before faia notice the dissatisfaction of carriers in regard to the heavy-traffic lee regulations as to horse-drawn traffic, and in regard to the municipal freight service Mr. B. L. Hammond reciissd that when some time ago the carriers approached ttie council in regard to the heavy-traffic fees the council' had decided to have inserted in the Washing Up Bill a clause reducing the fees payable, but for some reason or another that clause was omitted, and the council had now given notice that it -would require to collect the full fees previously determined upon, and would later seek legislation validating a balancing off of the difference. He wished to point out, however, that such legislation could not be obtained for at least twelve months, during which time the carriers would have lying idle'the difference between the high and the lower fees.

The carriers had been called upon Jto pay about £8000 in -registration fees and another £4000 would ,be involved in heavy-traffic fees for horse-drawn vehicles. Seven months of the year had gone and no increaso in charges had been made, for the carriers did not know where they stood and could not adjust their charge 3. If the full fees were to be .demanded it would mean that the carriers would have to make up the £8000, plus thci £4000, in the remaining five months of the year. He suggested that the new bs'law should be held in abeyance this year and that the council should collect its fees ,on the basis of. the. old bylaw. ■ 1 UNFAIR COMPETITION. Mr. Hammond maintained that the municipal freight service was conducted on lines which were quite unfair to carriers, *. for the council first fixed the rates which carriers might charge, and then under-cut,-those rates in its own service, and, furthermore, • then operated at a loss. If the council did cut charges, at' least it should not out when it, could not show a profit. He maintained that the service did not cater for the working man. If*the service was not to be discontinued the charges should bo brought up to a level with those fixed by the council for carriers. Mr. A. J. Curtiss said that from being a service ior citizens the freight service had largely cut'into tho business of carriers in actual merchandise arid city work. . Mr. G. Mitchell added that it hit the small man; the large carrier was not affected. , . The Mayor, in reply, said that the council was anxious to carry out the spirit of tho agreement • which should have been embodied in the clause of the Washing Up Bill, but was unfortunately omitted. He could not say just what was the legal position as to foregoing the fees collectable under the heavy-traffic regulations, as suggested by Mr.. Hammond, but any decision would be made retrospective. The council would carry out its moral obligations in the matter..

In regard to the freight service, Mr. Norwood said-that it had to be remembered that the roading conditions of "Wellington made it difficult for carriers to give to residents in certain of the suburbs 'quite.so convenient a service as could be given by the freight service. Apart from other " considerations, the council had to consider what should be its duty to citizens Living on the higher levels and in sparsely populated areas: and desirous of doing their shopping in -, the pity. Before the camera could establish a case for the abolition of the service they should have to show that the public conld be served in the same degree.in the absence of the service. He would have a report prepared for his own and the council's information ; that report would bo available to the .Master Carriers' Association and the public.