LYTTELTON HARBOUR BOARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7562, 29 May 1885, Page 3

LYTTELTON HARBOUR BOARD.

, An ordinary meeting of the Lyttelton Harbour Board was held yesterday afternoon; present—Mr E. G. Wright (Chairman), the Hon J. T. Peacock, and Messrs W. B. Tosswill, T. M'Clatchie, W. White, jun., H, AUwright, C. R. ; Blakiston,' C. W. Turner, R. Allan, F. Graham, R. Westenra and Captain A. Parsons. An; apology was made for the absence of Mr A. Chalmers. chairman’s STATEMENT. The Chairman made the - following statement : —l. I have pleasure in announcing the appointment by His Excellency the Governor of Captain A. Parsons as a member of this Board to represent the County of Ashley. The amounts paid into the Board’s account since our last meeting are as follows :—Wharfage, £l2lO 15s 6d; pilotage and port charges, £233 2s 9d; towage, warps, and-dock dues, £IBO 11s 8d; total, £1624 9s lid. Our Bank account is at present overdrawn £489 7s 7d, but there are outstanding wharfage dues since April 20 to come in,, which will place the account in credit. Accounts amounting to £2184 4s. 8d will be laid before you for payment tb-day. 2. The annual report of the Lyttelton Sailors’ Home will be brought up to-day. 3. The dredging, towage and electric lighting returns for the last'month are on the table. The dredge is now working outside the moles, and I propose to keep her working there until the shoal is reduced to the level of the inner harbour. 4, The questioil of Messrs Grubb and Co.’s slip in Baker’s Bay was brought under the notice of the Harbour Improvement Committee, and they expressed an opinion that if his workshop was removed there appeared to be no necessity at present for the removal of his slip. 5. With regard to the letter from the Otago Harbour Board on the subject of the proposal to, obtain power from Parliament to charge wharfage on Government material, tlie Harbour Improvement Committee are of opinion that this Board should co-operate with the other Harbour Boards to obtain this, object. 6. Members will probably have noticed by the Jnjbwspapers that it has been proposed to (dispatch the Government mail steamers from Lyttelton on Sundays. As I believe the Board were strongly averse to such a course, I telegraphed to the Hon Post-master-General on the subject, but have received no reply. I willy therefore, ask you to express' the Board’s feeling by resolution. 7. Messrs Hollis,- Williams and Green have -written in regard oi extra length of pttedy driven in their ocean ■Mwiijfajetty contract. Their letter will Jlfe ■the second page of the contract speciIJation'provides:—“ That the contractor iMiist; satisfy himself of the nature of the [■ittbhv and the length of the piles required to reach the rock,” and I am Biformed that Mr Bell declined to allow Ihis claim. 8. The plan of the proposed ■raif, 'accommodation on the reclaimed Hand, as finally agreed upon between |Mr/Bell and the railway authorities, is |oh the table. The only portion the Board rhave at present ordered is the siding to the 'new shed which is just bult. Messrs 1 Scott Bros., who have leased the workshop site at the dock, have applied for a line to be laid to that point. 9. Correspondence will be read in reference to the charges made by the Government for loading and discharging goods on the Lyttelton wharves. 10. The Government wrote, i asking for the plan and specification of our ilifeboat; these have been duly placed at [their disposal. 11. Messrs MU.es and Co., I as agents for the Giilcher Electric Lighting [Company, have applied for a testimonial ! in regard to the electric light installation lip Lyttelton. 12. The new chains and IJpheels for the patent slip having arrived !j|am Home, the necessary alterations to *he working gear are now in progress. 13. ST letter will be read from the promoters of She New Brighton Tramway Company in Heference to a bridge proposed to be erected Ever the Avon. sailors’ home. The report of the Sailors’ Home Committee, which was taken as read, is printed in another column. The Chairman said that although the Institution had not been self-supporting, the Committee looked for better results in the future. The loss on the thirteen mqnths was £173 3s sd. The Hon J. T. Peacock did not think that credit should be given to the sailors; .for if it was, the loss at the end of next year would be much larger. ■ Mr Tosswill supposed the suggestion of the Committee to be that no more shoqld be charged those who took credit than those who paid as they went on. The Chairman moved the adoption of the report. Mr Turner seconded the motion, and said he thought the Institution was a credit to the Port. He did not think the first object to be kept in view was that it should be self-supporting. If the Board had to contribute £loQf ; a year to such an, object the money would be well spent. The report was unanimously adopted. ACCOUNTS. Accounts to the amount of £2184 4s 6d were passed for payment. ; / • baker’s bay/ f The correspondence concerning the re-. moval of Grubb’s slip from Baker’s Bay was read. The Officer Commanding* the District had desired the removal of the

slip because the workshop was too near the powder magazine- and torpedo boat shed. Mr Grubb wrote deprecating his being removed after a tenancy of 11 years, such removal meaning the ruins of his business. He was not unwilling to remove the workshop. 1 '-The Chairman thought that until Government were prepared to build two torpedo boat slips as contemplated, and if the Board agreed with him that the removal of tb® workshop was all that was at present necessary, he would write to the Governpient to that effect. Mr Turner moved—“ That Mr Grubb’s slip has been very useful for a number of years to the shipping of Lyttelton, and this Board is of opinion that if the Defence Minister desires to remove the slip he should be required to pay compensation to Mr Grubb.” He thought the proceedings of the Government were very arbitrary and simply amounted to an order to “clear out.” Mr All weight seconded the motion. He had understood that the torpedo shed was to be erected bn the western breakwater. The cost would have been, he believed, much less, and the difficulty of launching the boat also much less. The Chairman agreed that the Government would have escaped the present difficulty had the. Harbour Board been consulted as to the site for the torpedo shed. The motion was agreed to unanimously. WHARFAGE ON GOVERNMENT MATERIALS, The letter from the Otago Harbour Board was read, suggesting that combined action should be taken to get the Harbours Act amended so as to stop the immunity of Government imports from wharfage dues. The Auckland Harbour Board had agreed to support the action now proposed. In coal alone the Government would have then to pay £3OOO a year to the different Harbour Boards, Mr Allan moved—“ That this Board is prepared to co-operate with the other Harbour Boards to get the Harbours Act amended so as to admit ‘of wharfage dues being paid on Government materials.” Mr Graham seconded the motion, which was carried. SUNDAY MAILS. The Chairman thought that the arrangement 1 for dispatching mail steamers from Lyttelton on Sundays should, be protested against. This had not been broughtabout by any emergency/ but was deliberately advertised by the Postmaster-General of ' New Zealand. The Harbour Improvement Committee had discussed the matter, and passed the following- resolution:—’'That unless under special circumstances of emergency, neither the Harbour Board’s pilot, staff, nor the steam tug will be made available to take steamers out on Sundays.” ' Mr Turner considered this was a question that could be discussed apart from any consideration of the Sabbath. The arrangement would, he believed, result in the Board’s staff being called out to work on the day they had hitherto enjoyed ,as one of rest. The Shipping Company could do as they pleased, but should not be allowed to interfere with the Board’s men.' He moved the resolution as agreed to by the Harbour Improvement Committee. The Shipping Company could get everything done beforehand, the launch taking the mail out on the Sunday. : . Mr Blakiston seconded the motion.

Mr Graham thought that every facility should be given to the Shipping Company, but to make Sunday an ordinary working day was not reasonable. Mr Westenra : thought that the Board was going rather too far. He quite agreed that every protection should be given to the Board’s men to free them from working on Sunday.. Steamers came here now, and had to go away as fast as possible, and he thought no impediment should be put in their way. After October next, the day of departure would be Thursday. ; The Chairman took it that the resolution was a protest against the employment of people on Sundays. 1 Mr Graham dispatch of steamers on Sunday meant the employment of a large number of people—ten to one of those employed by the Board. ■ The present resolution would strengthen the hands of the Shipping Company, who did not wish theit boats to leave on Sundays. The resolution was carried. OCEAN STEAMEES’ WHABF. Messrs Hollis, Williams and Green wrote claiming £94 13s 6d for extras on account of the Ocean Steamers’ Wharf they are erecting. , The Chairman said the point he wished the Board to settle was whether the claim on account of extra length of piles should be admitted. , _ The Board resolved to disallow this. The Board then went into Committee, and on resuming, SCOTT BEOTHEES. Messrs Scott Brothers asked for the erection of shears, and for the formation of a siding to their workshops. * The. Board resolved to ask that the line be laid. LOADING CHANGES. The correspondence with the Government was read as to the charges made by the Department for loading and discharging goods on the Lyttelton wharves. The following was the correspondence:— Christchurch, April 28,1885. “ Sir,—The following resolution was agreed to at the last meeting of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, and I was desired to again bring the matter under the notice of the 1 Governmentf The Board desire to bring under notice the still heavy special charges imposed by the Eailway Department for supplying labour to load goods into trucks at Lyttelton, more especially coal; and therefore suggest that the Chairman should represent to the Government that the loading and transhipping charges in Lyttelton are still too high, and opt of proportion.to; the 1 services renderedsb the public.’ This question has been already brought under the notice of the govern--ment by the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, and as you personally are thoroughly conversant with the subject in 9JI its bearings, I feel that it is quite unnecessary for me to travel over the old ground, and institute cbmparisons between the charges made by the Government in Lyttelton and elsewhere. ( I must, however, remind you that, previous to the, initiation of the present system, consignees were able to provide the labour required for less than one-third, the amount now exacted by the Government, and that the merchants of Christchurch suffer an injustice under the_ existing arrangements. Thu sense of this injustice is, doubtless more galling to them than any pecuniary loss they may suffer by the restriction- upon .their trade. I ■ would, therefore, ask, on their behalf, that this griev•ance should be removed, and that the trade of the port of Lyttelton shall not be weighted with charges that are not imposed elsewhere.—l have, &c., “ Bdwaed G. Weight.” “ Eailway Department, Head Office, “ Wellington, May 5, 1885.

" Sir,—Before further remarking on your letter of April 28, respecting loading and transhipment charges '.at Lyttelton, I should he glad to learn Whether, your JBoard is aware that, within the last three months, the charges on unloading coal and goods landed for examination have been lowered at Lyttelton,—l have &c., ~ ■. . " Edward Eichardson.” “ Christchurch, May 20,1885. " Sir, —You ask whether the Harbour Board is aware that within the last three months the charges on unloading coal and goods landed for -examination have been lowered at Lyttelton. - In reply I have the honour to state that the Board were not aware that any such reductions had been made at the time indicated. My letter to you upon the subject was written on April 28, and the alteration to which you refer was gazetted on May 1. A reference to the several railway tariffs published since, 1881 shows that no alteration was made in

the general charge for loading and unloading from Oct. 24,1881, until May 1, 1885. If; the department gave effect to the reduction from Is to 6d per ton prior to the date of. gazetting the last amended railway tariff (as your question seems to imply} they omitted to bring the reduction under the notice of the Board. Nor does the reduction in the form in which it is gazetted materially improve our position, it being a reduction in name rather than in substance. The Gazette of May 1 provides that under class N, minerals—' For each loading or unloading done by the Railway Department, Is per ton will be charged. When cranage is charged for or provided, 6d per ton only will be charged for each loading or unloading done by the department/ so that goods discharged by the use of the Government crane pay—labour per , ton, 6d; cranage per ton, 6d ; but if dis-, charged by a vessel’s own winch, the consumer has to pay—labour per ton. Is j cranage, 6d. " Prom * enquiries made it appears that about one-fourth of the inward'and outward cargoes are loaded or discharged by means of the Government cranes. Hence it follows that, whilst the reduction from Is to 6d per ton recently gazetted appears at first sight to be a substantial-concession, . it is in reality nothing of the sort, being , a reduction of l£d per ton only -upon the trade of the port. The Board are of opinion that the alteration above referred to is unsatisfactory in the highest degree, and they hope the reduction from Is to 6d per ton will be made absolute, without reference to the use of cranes.—l have, &c., “Edwaed G. Weight.” The action taken by the Chairman was approved. . - ELECTRIC LIGHT. The Board agreed to give Messrs Miles and Co. a testimonial as to the electric light installation in Lytteltoni NEW BRIGHTON TEAMWAY. It was resolved not to put any obstacle in the way of the construction of the tramway bridge over the Avon, as proposed by the Company, on the understanding that the Board would not indemnify the Company against any action taken at a future date in the interest of the navigation of the river. - NEXT MEETING. The next meeting was fixed for Thursday, July 2, at Christchurch.