THE HARBOUR BOARD'S ACTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8468, 20 January 1891, Page 3

THE HARBOUR BOARD'S ACTION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—On reading the letter of Mr. M. Niccol, chairman of the Harbour Board iu reply to your subleader re wharfage on flour, one would conclude that the Board's case is a bad one or it would not require so much special pleading and extraneous matter to justify it. Mr. Niccol says " You alter tie sense of the whole matter by dropping out the word free, and on this false text have built up your argument." Query. When did Southern flour come in free or at a less wharfage than farm produce ? About the Board's consistent policy, I would say that the Board has been consistent for many years and charged the same wharfage on flour, bran, and pollard that it charged on ordinary farm produce ; but the late action of the Board is inconsistent, as a distinction is made for the avowed benefit) of one industry. Re local flourmills : Their profit must be very small, and their existence very precarious (see Mr. Niccol's pleading for them), if they require an extra shilling per ton on Southern flour to keep them from falling. The argument about stopping the shipment of flour to Kaipara, etc., is merely dust to obscure the vision of the reader. Timber vessels going in ballast from Lyttelton and other Southern ports, take flour and other produce at low rates to Kaipara, Thames, etc., and the Harbour Board's extra wharfage cannot interfere with that trade. It is evident that some other motive mifct influence the Board.l am, &e. Fkeetrade.