The Grievance Against the U S S Company

Grey River Argus, 19 April 1905, Page 3

The Grievance Against the U S S Company

At the Harbour Board meetang yesterday Mr Guinness moved the following motion : — "That the Board desire to dra v ■ the attention of the Govei-nment to iYe I fact that the trade of the port of Grey- : mouth is suffering through tlie •want of ■regular communicatuon ■ bet.ween Grey- . mouth and Wellington. Steamers from j Wellington for Greymouth often disciiarge ; tihciir Gne-ymouMi passengei-s and cargo •' at We^tpoa*t and return to Wellington, '• without entering the port of Greymouth, the consequence is' that passengera are put to great expense in either Waiting at? Westport for another steamer, or m travelling overland via Reefton to Greymouth, and cargo for the port of Grey- ; mouth is detained for several days at Westport until -it can be transhipped ISy another steamer, causing loss and in convenience to consignees. Again, r.;.al from the State mine is often delayed in ts shipment from Greymouth through such steamers not visiting the port of Greymouth ait the time appointed. Tlie Board would therefore strongly recommend ai r! urge the Government to exercise the powers vested in it by the "State Coal Mine Act, 1901" to acquire, a steamer or steamers to trade between the port of Greymouth and Wellington, via such way porta as may be considered desirable. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to tlie Right Hon the Premier, and the Hon the Minister of Marine, and the Hon the Minister of Mines." In speaking to the motion Mr Guinness Wd thait the Board should do everything in the interests of the town and district, and contended that 'it -was their duty to secure speedy and 'reliable communication between Greymoutli and Wellington. He quoted cases to show that the practice of the Union Company was to leave passengers and cargo at Westpor* when the Grey bar was blocked for a tide. This was a. great inconvenience to passengers and bi-anessmen. Passengers were often compelled to stop at Westpoirt three or four days until a vessel came along. Il cost at the lowest 8s a- day, and this was a great hardship, especially to a -worki-ig man bringing a family to Greymoath. If the passengers decide to come overland the Union Company did riot make and concessions. Tlie carriage of rod •was an important item, and Ike delay caused a loss ito the miners. The tracks ff^re kept, full and work had to be curta^oi until tlie trucks were empty. The Government under the State Coal Mine Act were entitled to secure vessels of their own. and he strongly urged that the Board should take the necessary steps in the interest of the town and prevail upon tlie Government ,the advisability of chartering a vessel or two. Mi- Petrie seconded pro forma so 9? to allow the 'matter +0 be discussed. Ho ■was against the motion on the grounds that tlie Board would suffer in revenue. If the- State owned steamers for carrying coal they would riot pay the Board harbour fees. The Union Company paid £1100 to £1200 a year in wharfage due* and spent about £12,000 a year in i^es to the wharf labourers. He held tlial if the Government owned the vessels tiiey would reduce the wages of the workers. Mr Bisliop liad told him ttliat no delay had been caused to the State mine by the Union Company. Mr Scaaitlebuiy said he would vote against the motion on tlie grounds that ib would mean reduced revenue. The Mapourika had only been prevented from entering the part six times during the last 18 anomtlis. .Tlie Union Comapny had catered; well for the- district-. Mr Russell opposed tlie motion simply because he wag a member of the Board. He held tlie Board should not father' th.» motion. They knew full well that the Government would not pay for anything, as they had not paid the special rate on coal, etc. During the last 12 months the Union Company had kept vessels outside tJie port for 3,100 ihours, or equal to one vessel for four months. This "was on accourit of a bad bar. Mr Murdoch objected to State interference in public enterprise. If they encouraged tJhe Government to enter into competition witlh the Union Company they would be killing the goose that layed the golden egg. Mr Hargreaves opposed the motion as he could not see that the Union Company liad done anything very wrong. Mr Guinness in reply, said he was surprised at the stand the members had token. They were taking up the cudgels for the Union Company. There was a little excuse for the ■members who did not reside in town, but lie was astonished at His Worship the Mayor. ' All the members seemed well posted up in the matter from tlie Union Company's side. Mr Petrie— l am not defending the Union Oomipany but the Board's revenue. Mr Guininess— Tliere was nothing to show that the Government would not pay wharfage dues, at anyrate it would only be one or two steamers. Mr Petrie — The Government's steamer Hinemoa came in and out of the port and did not pay any dues. Mr Guinness said that tihe dues »>n one steamer only amounted to about £4 a trip. Mr Petrie was absolutely wrong stating the men would receive lower wages. He did net know what had influenced Mr Bishop to make the statement about itlie State coal never being delayed. He knew to the contrary. Tlie motion was put and lost, Mr Guinness being/the only supporter.