WHARFAGE TARIFF.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 908, 5 June 1903, Page 2

WHARFAGE TARIFF.

(To the Editor of the Times). Sir, —The delegates from the Farmers’ Union, when interviewing the Ilatbor Board last week, failed to make the most of their own opportunity. In asking for a reduction of the wharfage rates, they should have oven prepared to show where the Boanl were to get revenue from to make up for the reduction. The rates, as at present enforced, are unquestionably a serious handicap on the district, and it is now absolutely necessary that some other menus should be found of obtaining funds. It is not ti question of the remission of

taxation oil one or two lines at the expense of the remainder of the community, but a general reduction of harbor rates to a considerable extent, and the recovering of the amount so lost, from sources within the control of the Board, and which are at present an eyesore. I refer to the foreshore on both sides of the river. Of course I am i'uiiy aware that the old cry of • amateur engineering ” will be raised against any opinion not backed by the magic letters C.K., but this matter only requires to be looked at from a common sense and business point of view. As a beginning the Board s ould reclaim the

ioiesiiuie from the slip to the cattle yard, finishing, say a section of IUU feet at a time, and immediately calling for tenders for a lease of 21 years. As soon as one section is oil’ their hands proceed with another, and so on to the end. Considering the splendid facilities which the railway and tlie river will give to any business car

lied on on these sections, there is sure to be strong competition for them. In my opinion, the planning out of our future inner harbor can only successfully he carried out oil lines somewhat as follows: That is, reclaiming a portion of the (oreshore on the Kuiti side from the wharf to the bridge, dredging the space between that and the town wharf for a swinging basin for vessels, connecting the groyne with the town wharf, removing the old goods shed and a portion of the point on which it stands, and utilising every available toot of foreshore for revenue purposes. To talk of running the rivor through reducing the volume of water entering, consequent on reclaiming a portion, is simple nonsense. While on this matter I would like to poiut out that

tlio whole of the timo of the two dredges, since the arrival of the John Townlcy, has been taken up dredging inside the line of the end of the groyne. That being so, where is tho need of further extention ? No one will seriously contend that lengthening tho groyne will deepen the river at the wharf or any intonnediato point between it and the bar. I still hope that the Board, having so far found that tho bar is not tho difficulty, will refrain from extending further seawards, but will uso tho timber instead on lines indicated above. —I am, etc., Kaiti.

(To the Editor Gisborne Times

Sir, —In the Times of yesterday your appreciative loader on tho Farmers’ Union’s effort to secure a revision of the lighterage dues and Harbor Board tariff, does not seem to cleariy indicate tho lines which we generally advocated should be followed.

As Messrs Kennedy and Evans had indicated their cordial desire to amoliorato tho conditions at present existing with regard to lighterage, and tho Harbor Board was also about to review the subject, it was deemed by us to be ili-advised to pursue that matter further at present. The Harbor Board tariff, however, appearod to present to us as ratepayers oven more grounds for complaint. Mr F. Harris very ably explained many existing anomalies, and showed how the present tariff not only was driving the trade of tho East Coast ports (which are in our Harbor Board rating district) to Auckland, but many of our young industries as well, as it is found impossible to pay tho tariffs on the imported material, and then again on the exported manufactured article. It was shown by the Chairman of the Harbor Board that the Act prohibits any differentiation between one port and another, and that therefore we could make no difference between the East Coast ports and others ; but surely it would not ho impossible to study what turitls mostly affect tho farmer, and consider whether those rates boiug modified would unduly benefit outsido ports, which from tho uaturo of tho trade is a most improbable contingency.

It is a generally accepted axiom that anything iu the nature of an export duty tends to check and crush industries, und is therefore extremely undesiiatfle in a young aud rising district. That this view generally obtains was shown by the deoate in tuo House of Commons on the export duty ou coal, which was exacted, avowedly not only for revenue, hut for the purpose of checking the export of that valuable commodity. While it is too much to hope for, that this district should be instuntly converted to a desire for free exports, it is

apparent that much could he done in that direction by reducing tho tariff ou all or most exports. Of course it will bo contended that that will bring rnoro burdens upon us ratepayers, but it is precisely tho same argument in auother form as that winch was brought against Imperial aud New Zealand penny post, whose opponents held that it would be accompanied by financial ioss, and the answer will bo the satno, that more liberal terms will bring increase of business and with it increased revenue. Would it not be possible tor the Harbor Board to appoint a committee, not solely of gentlemen who are on the Board, but, say, with two leading merchants and two farmers as well, to consider these rates and suggest what necessary alterations can be made.—l am, etc., Lissaxt Clayton. June 3rd,