CORRESPONDENCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 March 1921, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

HARBOUR BOARD CHARGES. (To the Editor.) Sir,—As one always interested in the welfare of the port of Greymouth, I was particularly struck with the report in last night’s “Star” of an interview given by the Chairman of the Harbour Board. Mr. Steer, in his efforts to justify the excessively high, tariff he is trying to set up, makes some wild statements for which his friends will not thank him. The statement that the Government had handed over to the Grey Harbour Board £400,000 worth of property totally free from debt is likely to cause some heartburning in certain quarters when the Westport Harbour Board’s affairs are being considered ; and the Right Hon. W. F. Massey will not appreciate such a ludicrous statement at Mr. Steer’s value. How ridiculous thisf assertion is can be seen when, in the budget prepared by the Board in justification of this excessive tariff, £22,150 is set down as the annual charge for interest and sinking

fund. Rather a striking commentary on the “freedom from debt” statement. The other items of wharfage, 1/- per ton on coal, and 4d per 100 ft on timber, cannot be justified on the lines taken by Air. Steer. There is not the slightest chance of a truck of timber or a ton of coal, except for railway purposes, going through the tunnel for at least two years; and yet Mr. Steer attempts to justify an immediate impost exceeding

the requirements of the port, as proved by the Board’s own figures, by over £lO,OOO per annum. One would naturally assume that any body of men realising the necessity of placing tr.o port in the most favourable position to do business would hesitate to load it up with charges that must have the effect of causing producers to look for other means of handling their products than over the Grey wharf. To me it seems only reasonable to assume that the Board should not penalise the trade of the port by the infliction of such a tariff as is suggested until the effects of the tunnel are at least indicated. There can be no justification for the tariff which it is evidently intended to impose from April Ist.—l am etc., SHIPPER, Cobden, March 2nd, 1921.