CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Evening Star, Issue 9386, 7 May 1894, Page 1

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

A meeting of the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce was held on Friday, and attended by Messrs A. C. Begg (president!, Keith Ramsay, T. R. Fisher. J. T. Mackerras, and J. M. Gallaway. In reply to a letter from the London Chamber with reference to the bills of lading question, it was resolved to pay that this Committee is still decidedly in favor of the proposal made and the form adopted by the Sydney Chamber. The Secretary reported that as the difficulties iu connection with the proposed Institute of Accountants had been settled and the articles of association signed, the Insti-, tute would be registered in Wellington at, once.

A letter was read from the Harbor Board secretary with reference to the resolutions passed at the last meeting of the Chamber, forwarding a copy of his memorandum on' the Board’s expenditure and indebtedness. Mr A. S. Paterson also forwarded the following letter, and it was decided to request the Press to publish it, and also that a special meeting of the- Chamber to consider the whole question of harbor dues be called for Wednesday next: —

Dunedin, Ist May, 1894.

A. C. Begg, Esq., President Chamber of Commerce, Dunedin.

Sir,—Being about to leave town, I wish to place on record my reason for stating at tho last meeting of the Chamber that an impost of li per cent, in place of the present scale of harbor aues would lead to diversion of trade from our port.

The point does not require much argument. One might rather ask: How could it possibly be otherwise? Look for example at out distributing trade with Oamaru and Timaru. How_ Can it possibly be maintained against Lyttelton if goods landed here pay say 1 per cent, more dues than there?

I have recently had occasion to notice that the large share of the Timaru trade in sugar which used to be done from here has been mostly diverted to Lyttelton. On inquiring into the matter I found that the cheaper transhipment dues at Lyttelton were the chief cause. It requires no prophet to predict that an increase of dues here will settle the Dunedin-Timaru sugar trade altogether. Take another item with which I am familiar. There is a large trade from Dunedin with the North Island in agricultural seeds, imported from Europe and America, and distributed from here as required. It is “a survival," a fragment of the old metropolitan importing trade of Dunedin which has never been wrested from her, although lately Lyttelton has been cutting into it. I estimate it at 100 tons per season, and the goods as valued (on an average) at £BO per ton. At present the import dues at Dunedin are 3s per ton. Increase them to IS per cent., and you load the business with 24s per ton harbor dues, and most certainly kill it. I mention these two items because they come within my personal experience in my own business, and there is no disputing them. There must be many other lines known accurately to others, and of which they can speak with authority. These will serve as specimens. Such matters are not governed by freaks but by natural laws. Looking at the Harbour Board’s reports for an explanation of the proposed change, I find they “are of opinion that a further direct imrea*the dues on general imports, which are now 3s per ton, might interfere with the trade of the port, and possibly have the effect of depriving us of a portion of our revenue derived from exports coastwise. which at present amount to £2,000 a year. In view, therefore, of all the circumstances, your Committee have decided to recommend that power be sought to impose an ad valorem rate on general imports on the declared value at the Customs. . . . This at a 1 per cent, rate would raise £13,500, as against £ll,lOO now raised as dues on general imports.” There is no hint here as to how or why the trade of the port would be disturbed by increasing the dues per ton, but not disturbed by increasing them on an ad valorem basis. Having puzzled over that considerably, I “give it up” ; but if it can be satisfactorily explained my argument falls to.tho ground. I think the matter may he put iu this way: Changing from per ton to per lb means reducing dues on the low-valued goods, such as salt, cement, pig iron, etc., and increasing them upon valuable goods, such as jewellery, watches, pianos, silks, etc., supposing the same total to be raised. But it a greater total amount be raised, as here proposed, it means still further reducing tho levy upon tho low-valued goods and increasing it upon tho highvalued ones.

Now all will admit that our coastwise trade has dwindled to a mere fraction of what it used to be, chiefly from causes quite unconnected with the Harbor Board. In such a process of shrinkage the heavy goods go first. They do not stand double handling, and the expense of coastal carriage is too much for them, apart from any question of dues. Therefore it is that our coastal trade is now confined almost entirely to the more valuable class of goods. On this very class of goods the new impost would bear very heavily; and therefore it would be a direct blow to our coastal trade. This is how the matter appears to me, and I venture to hope that the Chamber will require stronger argument or evidence to be adduced to the contrary before t(i6y endorse the Board’s proposal. Of course my argument against the ad valorem dues would not apply if there were provision for relieving the coastal trade when the goods wore reshipped ft oni the port. But I notice no provision of that kind. I have nothing to say against the goods required for our own area of consumption paying any impost, ad valorem or otherwise, necessary to bear the burden of our harbor expenditure. But it is the remnant of onr coastal trade that will not stand further weighting. The ‘ Journal of Commerce,’ dated Melbourne, 24th April, just to hand as I write, contains the following paragraph: - “ We have reason to believe that, as the result of inquiries made amongst merchants, the Government will shortly announce their intention to abolish the 1 per cent, primage tax on imports. It is recognised that if the intercolonial trade is to lie preserved for Melbourne it is imperative the concession should be made.” This is so precisely to the point that I ought almost to apologise for urging at such length what is as well put here in a few words. I have purposely confined myself to an attempt to justify my few words at the last meeting of the Chamber, although I think other weighty objections to changing the incidence of the dues from tonnage to ad valorem might be fairly urged, I have named U per cent, as the proposed dues because the necessities of the Board are pressing, and if they get power to levy so much they would certainly have to do it.

Various reports and papers of interest from British and American Chambers and Boards of Trade were laid on the table.