FERRY VEHICULAR AND CARGO SERVICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13226, 11 July 1906, Page 6

FERRY VEHICULAR AND CARGO SERVICE.

S.B V CONDOR AND - COUNTERPOISE STAGES.'

COMPLAINTS BY THE FERRY COMPANY. The old question of counterpoise stages for enabling a ferry vehicular and cargo service to be carried on by the Devonport Ferry- Company's ».s. Condor was before the Harbour Board again yesterday. The manager of the Devonport Ferry Company wrote, stating that, as the Board was aware, the s.s. Condor was, at the suggestion and with the approval of the Harbour Board, built in 1902, with the object of carrying out the vehicular and cargo traffic between Auckland and Devonport with facility, and was designed to berth at stages of special construction, which were to be erected by the Board and completed simultaneously with the completion of the steamer. Owing to the stages not being erected on both sides of the harbour, the steamer could not be utilised for the purpose for which it was built, nor advantageously ply to the existing wharves, consequently she had been practically useless since she was built, all owing to" the . nonconrpletion of the. stages. He referred the Board to its minutes of December, 1902, when the Board resolved to proceed with the erection of the stages immediately the report of the engineer had been submitted. Three and a-half years had elapsed, mad the stages were still incomplete. The company was anxious to have the Condor working, and had been considering the advisableness of adapting the steamer for ordinary ferry traffic. The company desired to be informed definitely as to when the stages would be finally completed. If they were not to be completed in reasonable time, the company would'reluctantly be compelled to alter the Condor as mentioned. The Chairman (the Hon. E. Mitchelson) ! paid the statements in the letter were, not wholly correct. Fully 18 months, if not <f two years, ago the Works and Tariff Committee visited a site which it considered was adapted for the class of work, and that site was offered to the company, which declined to accept it. The site selected was on the low-lying ground near the railway wharf. The company practically said the site was too far; from the .centre of its business, and the only site it, was prepared to accept was alongside the present .tee, but the Board did not consider it advisable- to erect stages- there, in view of the fact thatpermanent counterpoise stages were to be erected on the western side of the wharf, and he considered that the Board acted wisely in refusing to erect stages,in a situation where they were likely to become permanent. He; considered that the company having declined the offer of the Board, the Board had gone as far as it could. As the i company required ai. definite answer, he ! moved, "" That' the letter- be referred to the Works and Tariff Committee." ' : "The motion was carried. .-..'"