OUR HARBOR DUES.

Evening Star, Issue 7168, 23 March 1887, Page 2

OUR HARBOR DUES.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir,—As the Bcrough Council of Port Chalmers have seen fit to publish a letter addressed to the Harbor Board before it was possible for it to come before that body, Ido not suppose that it will be considered any breach of etiquette on the part of one of the public to criticise it. On inquiry I find that the pilotage and port charges are exactly the same as they were when the direct steamers were first started, notwithstanding the heavy outlay, by means of borrowed money, that became a necessity on the part of the Board, principally to meet the requirements of these very steamers. Interest on that outlay has to be met, but, of course, Port Chalmers representatives are totally indifferent to such a consideration, as evidenced by their action re ways and means of constructing a new dock. Might I suggest that the surplus dock revenue be devoted to lowering the charges complained of. Towage has been reduced by 25 per cent, since the Board took it out of the hands of the private company, of which some prominent Port Chalmers residents were, I believe, shareholders. Again, the mail steamers making this port their first port of call are exempt from puotage and port charges. If the Board can reduce these charges, good and well. And if the Port Chalmers residents and laborers are really in earnest in believing thkt it is so essehtial to the interests of the provincial district as well as their own (the latter I believe!) then let them come forward

and agree to the reduction of their labor charges, and their appeal to the Board would » bUh».o ». have not lo ri a benefit to the provincial distriot, and I venture to tay that the now line of steamers inaugurated by, Mr will be of much greater bom fit to this port than tbo extravagantly-conducted line* that have so long held a monopoly and divided both the wool and the paroa-s between them. With our .plondid Union Company’* fleet connecting \\a with Melbourne and Sydney, wo would have lost nothing but been great gainer* had there been no direct service-at all events of so costly a character. I hope the Board will not be 10 weak as to transfer the fair ohargesfromthediroct steamers to the goods that are imported, and in which all are more or less interested, as, how* ever miieh that might suit Fort Chalmers, it would bean additional burden upon our eon* Sumer*, who derive no benefit from either of the two companies at present in the field, and also handicap our merchant* in pushing their coastal traffic, which has far more to do with making the status of the port than the loss of an occasional call of the direct steamers. To make sure, however, that there is no “ will-o’-the-wisp ” in this cry, will the Port Chalmers Borough Council, to strengthen their appeal, get the two companies to bind themselves that all their steamers will call if the charges arc reduced by one-half, as suggested ? If such a guarantee were given, the number of calls might, from a revenue point of view, be an equivalent for tho leaser charges. I venture to say no such guarantee will be given, because the charges nro not the reason for their not calling at present; and I believe the cry is simply a means to an end—“a red herring drawn across the scent.” —I am, etc., Otago. Dunedin, March 23.