Lime Company Will Not Be Allowed To Use Harbour Board’s Siding

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 August 1947, Page 2

Lime Company Will Not Be Allowed To Use Harbour Board’s Siding

The situation concerning the proposed establishment of a lime works at the Cobden quarry, in opposition to the Ross lime works, was further complicated by the Greymouth Harbour Board last evening when, on the recommendation of its engineer (Mr D. S. Kennedy), backed by the opinion of the Commissioner of Works (Mr E. B. McKillop), who was advised by the former engineer-in-chief to the Public Works Department (Mr F. W. Furkert), the board refused an application by Messrs G. L. Johnston and C. McLeod for permission to use the board’s siding at the quarry. One member of the board dissented, Mr W. E. J. Steer. The decision was made following a lengthy discussion in which it was plainly stated that the board had no power to grant to the company the right to quarry stone on the site, as it did not own the quarry, and that the only property with which the board was concerned was the siding which the company wished to use.

The subject was raised by receipt of a letter from Messrs Joyce and Taylor, solicitors for Messrs Johnston and McLeod, asking for the right to use the board’s siding at the quarry, with a reservation that the company would not interfere with the board’s operations. It was suggested that the board set up a committee to complete the details. In the course of the letter it was’ stated that a similar application had been made in November, 1944, but as a result of a Government tribunal deciding against the application, the board had refused permission. Since then, it was claimed, circumstances had changed and the supply of lime was not sufficient to meet the demands. The chairman (Mr E. W. Heenan) said that in order to safeguard the interests of the board its engineer had written to the Ministry of Works on the matter, which sought the advice of Mr F. W. Furkert, a member of the West Coast harbours advisory committee. Mr Furkert had considered that any such application should be declined. Mr W. E. J. Steer said that all the company wanted was the use of the siding and portion of the ground which was not being used. He did. not think the board should reject the application. "Emphatic Protest”

A letter was received from. the chairman of directors of the West Coast Co-operative Lime Company, Mr J. E. Jellie, entering an emphatic protest against the granting of facilities by the board to the new company. Two years ago the demand started to rise to something above the capacity of the Ross works, but more modern equipment had been purchased, which would meet the demands of the province for lime, and every effort had been made to secure the electric power necessary to operate the extended plant. Those efforts had, however, so far been unsuccessful, and plans were in train for the installation of a diesel generating unit to provide the necessary power. Arrangements had been made for the extra capital which was thus made necessary. It was pointed out that any penetration into the Ross company’s business would have a serious effect, and it was stressed that the arrangements in hand would enable the company to meet the demands. ..

The Ross company’s principal objection to the proposed new works was, it was stated, that the quality of the lime to be supplied was much below the Whitecliffs quality, where the company had until recently intended to operate. The Ross company’s position was still the same as when the Government tribunal made a recommendation against the proposed establishment of a new limeworks in the district.

The chairman: The only right we can give them is the right to use the siding. Mr J. B. Kent: If we did not want it.

The chairman: Yes, if we did not want it.

Mr Steer said he thought the board would be adopting a “dog-in-the-manger” attitude if it refused permission. It was an industry which might assist the development of the West Coast and, in his opinion, it was no concern of the board what kind or quality of lime the company proposed to supply. Mr Kent: We must be guided by 'Our engineer and by Mr Furkert and Mr McKillop. Engineer's Opinion The engineer (Mr Kennedy) said that from the experience of other boards he did not think the company and the board would be able to work smoothly together on the one line. There was no objection, however, to the company building its own line alongside the board’s line. Further, the company had not yet given an indication of what it. wanted in the way of machinery on the site. To a question by a member, Mr Kennedy said the board owned the line from the Railways Department line to the quarry and it was used for the transport of the board’s supplies, in addition to the cartage of quarry stone. Mr W. Clayfon said he did not see how the board could discuss the matter until it had a plan of the company’s proposals so that the members could judge the possible effect on the board's work. Mr Kennedy said the only plan he had had was a small pencil sketch which was not in any \vay comprehensive. ■ Mr Steer said that there . would have been no trouble about it in the first place, but for the fact that the then chairman .of the board was interested in the Ross compahy. Mr Kent said he was concerned that Mr Steer should make such a statement about a past chairman at the present time. Such a statement should have been made at the time it applied. It was a very serious thing to suggest that the chairman of the board had been in any way influenced in his work as chairman by the fact that he was connected with one of the companies. Mr Steer: All the board should have been concerned with 'was the question whether the new company was to have the use of the siding or not. There should have beeh no question of the merits, or demerits of the products of the two companies or the demand for lime and these questions would not have come up if the chairman at the time had not been connected with the Ross company.

Mr Kent said that Mr Steer should have raised that point when the question was considered in the first ih-

stance but not now. It was not fair to raise the question in the present discussion..

Mr M. Wallace said that the Government committee appointed when the proposal was first under discussion had given an adverse report on the proposal to establish a further lime works on the West Coast. The past chairman of the board referred to by Mr Steer was chairman of directors of the Ross company for over 16 years, and he (Mr Wallace) was in a position to say that Mr Mulcare had not received 6d for his services as chairman of directors or managing director. He knew, said Mr Wallace, that Mr Mulcare and the other directors had put in a tremendous amount of time and undertaken considerable financial responsibility to enable the industry to become established and they had not received a farthing by way of dividend. The same applied to the directors of the Kokatahi concern. Had the Cobden limestone the high calcium content of the Ross stone, lime works at Cobden would? have been established by co-operative farmers’ enterprise 25 years ago, but all scientific reports favoured Ross and that was why the farmers had developed the works at Ross. It was only fair, he reiterated, to say that the directors of the Ross concern had not received anything by way of dividend or payment for their services. “Concern of the Board” Claiming that the proposal to establish the lime works at Cobden in opposition to the farmers’ concern at Ross was a matter of very great moment to the board, Mr Wallace said that if a new industry started to wean away portion of the lime sales from Ross the inevitable result would be an increase in the price of the Ross lime, and this directly concerned people whom he represented on the board. It would particularly affect South Westland farmers. Another body of which he was a member, had discussed the matter at considerable length, and would make representations in the appropriate quarters at the right time. . Stating that he was a vice-president of the West Coast Federated Farmers. Mr Wallace said they had deputed him to ask the board to defer consideration of the application until the Ross company was able to make written or personal representations. Speaking personally Mr Wallace said that the fact that there was a shortage of lime today had to be admitted, but there were also shortages of other commodities which were urgently needed and, for instance, no one had suggested that the generation of electric power or the production of coal should be handed over to private enterprise because of shortages which were directly attributable, as in the case of lime, to war conditions. He believed, he said, that no private company should have the right to develop anything which was the property of the country as a whole, such as the natural deposit of limestone. The natural resources of the country should be developed by the State or by co-operative enterprise for the benefit of the whole country, and of the two he preferred the latter. The natural deposits of limestone should not be handed over to a private company for private profit.

“We, in Kokatahi and Ross, have in the past 25 years developed ‘lime consciousness’ among the farmers of the West Coast,” added Mr Wallace, “and now a private company comes along and wants to exploit that ‘lime consciousness.’ ” Appeal after appeal was made in the annual reports of the Ross company for farmers to use more lime and it was only in the last 12 months, he added, that the company had been unable to meet the demand which it had created.

Discussing the prices which had been quoted concerning Ross lime and the proposed Cobden lime, Mr Wallace said the price of Ross burnt lime to Rapahoe had been quoted at 24s a ton while the proposed price for Cobden lime, which would be carbonate, was said to be 14s. Any farmer, however, knew that Ross burnt lime at 24s a ton was a much better buy than Cchden carbonate at 14s. He quoted an authority, Dr Burns, for a statement that one ton of burnt lime was equivalent in value for the land to one and a half to one and three-quarter tons of ground limestone. Ross burnt lime, he said, was 90 per cent, pure, and he gave details of the relative quantities of useful material in the two products, concluding that for equivalent quantities of useful material the landed cost of one and three-quarter tons of carbonate from Cobden at Barrytowh would be .£2 10s 9d against £2 Os lOd for one ton of Ross burnt lime (calcium oxide). Cost To the Farmer The farmer, he said, would be faced with the cartage of something like double the quantity of carbonate as compared with the burnt lime to get a given result. Such cartage would increase the cost of maintenance of the roads and the ratepayers were vitally concerned in that respect. “I have read the statements in the press about the matter,” concluded Mr Wallace, “and most of them have been misleading and some of them have been ludicrous. At some other time and appropriate place I shall have something more to say about them. In the meantime I ask the board to consider the request of the Federated Farmers that the Ross company be given time to put its case to the. board.

Mr Williams: Could Mr Wallace.tell us why the farmers are so afraid di

opposition when they have nearly all the farmers in their company and the quality of their product is said to be so much better?

Mr Kent interrupted to ask if the board was going to debate the subject of lime. The chairman: All we are concerned about is the fact that they want to use our railway, line. The engineer thinks we should keep the line to. ourselves and does not consider that any arrangement between the company and the board wdiild work. He has the support of the Ministry of Works for hjs opinion. , Mr Wallace apologised for “taking up the time of the board,” but added that he had done so in fairness to a man who had done great service for the farmers of the district. Mr Steer said, that he meant ho reflection on Mr Mulcare when he lhade his remarks earlier in. the meeting. He added that the board of the company could not make the. farmers buy the lime which it was proposed to produce at Cobden—if it was not a good product, it would not sell. The chairman said that the board must have a guarantee that if it granted the use of the siding it would not be interfered with in any way. The application had nothing to do with the use of the stone from the quarry by the company. That was not a question for the board. Ratepayers’ interests Mr J. J. Devine, after commenting that Mr Wallace “certainly gave us an illuminating and fluent oration on lime,” said that the line cost the board about £2OOO and, as representative of the Dobson and Ruhahga districts, he felt it was his duty to look after the interests of the board and not allow private enterprise to use the board’s facilities. If the board granted the use of the siding, affairs would not run smoothly. Mr Devine moved that the engineer’s recommendation, that the company be not allowed the use of the board’s siding, be adopted, and that the board seek, through the Land Board, to safeguard its property. The motion was seconded by the chairman.

Mr Williams said that the company could get the stone where it pleased, and there* would be no objection io its getting the stone at Cobden, provided it did not interfere with the board’s works. The motion, oh being put to the meeting, was carried, Mr Steer being the only dissentient.