BRIANDALE TRAMWAY

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1934, Page 12

BRIANDALE TRAMWAY

DICTATORIAL POLICY ALLEGED.

That the attitude adopted oy the Briandale Coal Company, in connection with the transport of other parties coal over its tramway, amounts to dietation, with the object of preventing the independent sale of coal, was alleged in a letter received at last evening’s meeting of the Greymouth Harbour Board, from Brady and party. An application was received from the party for a bin site, 40 feet by 20 feet, on the northern side of the TenMile Creek, about two chains west ,oi the Grey—Barrytown Road. The party also forwarded the tollowing letter: —“Our party are working a coal lease at the Ten-Mile, adjoining that of the Briandale Company. The latter company have a tram over the only practicable route, which is partly on State and Harbour Board reserves. The cost of constructing a tram for our own use, over the route now available, would be prohibitive. On commencing operations, we arranged to dispose of our output to the Briandale Company, at a price dictated by them, which leaves no margin, and would finally land us in the Bankruptcy Court. There is no -possible chance of making even a decent living on the price. To state the position as briefly as possible, we approached the Briandale Company, or Messrs. Red pa th and Company, with the idea of obtaining something like a reasonable price, and failed to make any headway, but were informed we were lucky to have a job, and they practically intimated that it was no concern of theirs if we could not make ends meet. Failing to agree on a reasonable price, we discussed the question of their hauling our coal on their tram for us to market our own coal, and after considerable argument, the secretary informed me, by telephone, that this would be done for 1/6 per ton. I asked the secretary to confirm this price to their mine manager, who was brought to the telephone. Later, after we had arranged for another merchant to take the output at a substantial increase in price—which would allow us to work the mi no ns it should be worked, we went to Messrs. Redpath to finalise the agreement, and they refused pointblank to do so. This, then, means that unless we sell the coal to Messrs Redpath at starvation prices, they intend to prevent us working the mine. Rather than submit to such outrageous conditions, we refused to supply them, and the mine is idle in consequence. Wo would be pleased to learn if your . Board could assist us in any direction, or in any way induce Messrs. Redpath and Company to haul, or allow us to haul, our coal over their tram, for which we are preapred to pay a reasonable figure. The position at present indicates that Messrs. Redpath can dictate to any present or future companies operating in this district, and practically smother operations unless the parties submit to starvation prices for their coal.”

BOARD’S ATTITUDE

The Chairman (Mr. P. J. McLean) said that the only thing that really interested the Board was the application for the bin site. If the Board had any coal reserves in that direction, he did not think they should grant any bin site, without reference to the Engineer. They had to look after themselves, in the matter of providing storage accommodation for coal from their own endowments. The other matter had nothing whatever to do with the Board, as Brady and party were on a State coal lease. It was therefore a matter for the Mines Department. Redpath and Company were granted the tramway right, and there was no objection raised at the time. The Board members had inspected the locality, and, although they would like to assist Brady and party so far as possible, it was really a matter for the Mines Department, as it was a State mine area. The Board was out to assist every industry on the West Coast, but at the same time it had to look after its own interests. They could not block out their own areas of essential space. He moved that the matter of the bin site be referred to the Engineer for a report, and that Brady and party be informed that the Board could not do anything in regard to the tramway. If they had objected to the tramway right in the first place, something might have been done. It was the duty of the Mines Department to provide egress. The Department was getting the royalty.

Mr. J. Ryall *said that the Board made a mistake in granting the tramway, without imposing conditions with regard to the haulage of coal.

The Chairman said that the Mines Department could protect the people concerned, if it liked to do so. The Board should not be used to “pull the chestnuts out of the fire.” The tramway right was given to Redpath and Company under certain conditions, and those conditions should be carried out. There was not much work being done at the present time by Redpath and Company. They were really making their living out of the tramway, instead of out of the mine. It was a matter for the Mines Department to take action.

Mr. Ryall said that the Board could have opposed the grant in the first place, but did not think of it. He thought that there was another way of getting out of the difficulty, however, as he believed that the tramway was on road reserve.

The Chairman: Don’t, you think it is the Mines Department’s job? Mr. Ryall, in reply, said that, he did not see that the Board could do anything. He suggested that the Engineer be given power to act. The Chairman said ho was willing to alter his resolution, to that effect. The matter was left in the hands of the Chairman and Engineer, with power to act. Mr. Ryall said the position was that Redpath and Company could stop any person from sending coal from his mine in that locality, at the present time. . The Chairman remarked that, if the conditions were not being carried out, the tramway right could be cancelled.