WOOL AND GRAIN MERCHANTS’ SIDINGS

Evening Star, Issue 14183, 7 October 1909, Page 8

WOOL AND GRAIN MERCHANTS’ SIDINGS

A PROPOSAL TO TAX THEM FURTHER IS CARRIED. A deputation from the wool and grain n erchantfi of the City waited on the City Council last night to ask them not to carry to issue their proposal to charge £25 a yeni to firms having private railway sidings, but rather to leave the charge where it has stood for twenty-five years—•'at £l3 a year. Mr Todd (representing the Farmers' Cooperative) pointed wit that the merchants, by building these sidings and thus diverting very heavy traffic from the streets, had saved the Corporation hundreds of pounds annually. It yva.» u-ditferent matter paying lead, to the railway, because they had' exclusive right to portion of the yards, and kept them blocked. But the Corporation’s load was never blocked by the tr.ucks earrving the merchandise; indeed, the blocking wliich would be caused if the goods were carted from the station was obviated through these fadings; and, moreover. th< merchants had not exclusive use of the street. t The Hon. T. Fergus (Donald P,eid and Co.) said that these sidings had cost souk firms £I,COO,_ and their average cost had been £SOO. They were put down to conserve and retain the trade to the City, which, .in lace of the competition from north and south, was very necessaty. Ihe merchants wanted to get the goods as quickiy as possible, and with the least possible inconvenience to importers and exporters, lost competitors outside should g*u the trade. The merchants paid the Go Ternment £SO for the use of part of their yards, and they had aiso to maintain the sidings at their own expense ; further thin that, they had to pay for the maintenance ot the streets on each side of the track leading into their stores. Altogether tlteee sidings cost from £IOO to £l5O a y- ar to maintain, and now, without rhyme or reason, the City Council were proposing to tax the merchants for croscmg the si reel o. If it were not for the matter of convenience, it would suit the merchants much belter to take delivery of the goods from the station at the hands of the Railway Dcpa-ii-ment, as that department contracted to <b>, and then the City Corporation would have to pay for the repaits to the streets whin would be necessitated by such heavv traffic. Cr TapJey (when the deputation had withdrawn) moved that the clause in the Works Committee's report advocating thcharge of £25 a year be referred b.o k to the Committee, with a recommendation to leave it a.t £l3. He sail that the iinrannv ot goods handled on these sidings was 250.000 tons a year, and it was obviouswhat wear n-nd tear there would be if this went over the streets. Cr Co'e seconded. Cr Sullivan said was it likely that those merchants put in sidings costing £I.OOO to t-ave the Corporation money? They were put in because they were needed by the fiairts. It was a privilege, and should be paid for. The Mayor said that one person had informed_him that such a siding would save him £ooo a year. Cr Tapley's amendment was lost, and the Tccnmjnendation of £2o a vear rent was carried.