WHARFAGE CHARGES AGAIN DISCUSSED

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7241, 12 June 1930, Page 9

WHARFAGE CHARGES AGAIN DISCUSSED

Mr. I. A. Eliott’s Reply "NOT GETTING ANYWHERE” IS MR, M. 11. ORAM’S OPINION At a recent meeting of the Palmerston North Chamber of Commerce Mr. P. Stuart referred to Wellington wharfages, comparing the charges in respect of imports and exports. At Tuesday’s meeting, Mr. M. A. Eliott replied to Mr. Stuart, pointing out wliat he contended were errors in the latter’s remarks. In the first place, Mr.’ Stuart had stated that the Wellington Harbour Board made a difference in wharfages in favour of exporters, as compared with importers, of 400 per cent., and that owing to lighter wharfage charges at Auckland, goods could be imported by Hamilton merchants at 5/- to 7/per ton cheaper than Palmerston North merchants could import similar goods through Wellington.

Replying to this question by Mr. Stuart, Air. Eliott quoted the following figures: — Actual wharfage, including labour, on outward farm produce per ten-sack ton was 1/6 a ton, as against 9d. quoted by Mr. Stuart. Wharfage on general outward cargo was 1/6 as against Air. Stuart’s figure of 0(3., while wharfage on general inward cargo was 3/9, which corresponded with Air. Stuart s statement'. Under these corrected figures, Mr. Eliott contended that the gross percentage of difference-between outward and inward cargo was 160 per cent, and not 400 per cent., as Air. Stuart had argued. The difference was also less to-(lav than in 19115, and not greater, as stated by Air. Stuart. Mr. Stuart, Mr. Eliott stated, apparently did not understand that wharfage'charged to importers included all the service for labour costs, whereas the service to exporters consisted of unloading their- vehicles only. Air. Stuart had made a bald assertion that there was a difference of ofto 7/- per ton in favour of Auckland and had not produced any evidence in support of his statement. Air. Eliott stated that he had letters from the chambers of commerce in Auckland and Wellington, and from merchants -in Hamilton and Palmerston North, winch could be produced if necessary. According to the information contained in those letters, inward charges on general cargo at Auckland were: Wharfage, without labour, 2/6 a ton; cartage and labour (contract rates), o/a ton: total charges from ship s slings to merchant’s store, 7/C a ton. ■ s against this the wharfage charge at Wellington for the same class ot goods, but including labour, was 3/9 a ton, and the charge for cartage and labour at contract rates was 3/- a ton. making a total charge from ship to store of <>/.< per ton. . 1T ~, One of the. largest importers in Hamilton had written to him. stating: .■ ■ wharfage charge in Auckland on overseas goods, is practically the same as in Wellington.”

Not Getting Anywhere Ali- Stuart stated that he had taken his figures from a letter written to the chamber bv Mr. Eliott when advising of the Wellington port reductions. The chairman (Air. AT. H. Orom): \Ve don’t seem to get much further witn this matter. . Mr. Stuart: I don’t think we arc doing much good. Air. Oram suggested that a sub-com-mittee consisting of Messrs. Stuart and W H Brown should be appointed to confer with Air. Eliott in connection with this matter in an endeavour to arrive at some definite conclusions. This suggestion was adopted and the subcommittee was appointed.