OUR COAL TRADE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 3443, 26 May 1898, Page 2

OUR COAL TRADE.

Bkcentlt an article was published in these columns in which it was asserted that large possibilities of trade with the East in Westport coal had been balked because

•• the sellers could not arrange for transport except on terms that would have made the transaction commercially impossible.” A straight-out order for 5000 tone of coal had been received, and there were contingent orders making a total demand for 10,000 tons; but the acceptance of these was barred by want of transport facilities. Wo have now received from Mr James Mills, the managing director of the Union Steam Ship Company, a communication which, assuming that the article mentioned was “an attack upon the policy of this company,” proceeds as follows:

“Shortly put, jour article charges this company with causing the colony to lose the execution of an order for 10,000 tons Westport, coal for the East—Brat, because of our not having sufficient tonnage available ; seomd, through quoting prohibitive rates of freight; and, third, because wc have contracts with the New Sra'h Wales mines which prohibit our undertaking the work. “ With reference to count No. 1, we do not profess lo.rnnsteamers to (he Bast, nor oan it be supposed that we keep steamers lying idle merely on the chance of picking up an order for the Eastern seas. We aim to provide plant sufficient for the prospective requirements of our own trades, and are only able to take advantage of a ohanoe charter elsewhere when our own trades fail us. Besides, it is open to anyone to take up the carrying of ooals from New Zealand, and I am quite sure the Westport Coal Company will be only too pleased to supply coal to the fall extent of their capabilities to anyone who likes to corns for it. '

“ As regards the second count, that our rates were prohibitive, it is quite impossible for steamers owned and manned in New Zealand to carry freight on equal terras with steamers owned elsewhere. Our rates of wages are higher, and as the steamers uruat necessarily return to New Zealand they oannot count npon securing back freight. Our quotation was therefore based upon onr estimate of the cost of the work, and I may fairly ask how it happens that if our quotation was prohibitive the business has not been taken np by someone else prepared to qnotollower',? “ Now as to the third count. The statement that we have relations with New South Wales mines which prohibited our undertaking the work and deprived New Zealand of tha order, besides being absurd, is utterly untrue. As a matter of,fact, we have, no agreement or understanding of any kind with New South Wales mines, either for taking ooal from them or carrying coal for them. “ Now what are the facts ? Wo i were, asked to quote a rate of freight for 2 ; )00 tons Westport ooal to au Eastern port, and both the Inquiry and our reply were snpiposed to be absolutely confidential. Even now the Westport Company have no knowledge of the rata wo quoted, so that the information given the Premier could only ooms from one source. The inquiry for 10,000 tons of coal did not oome to us, bat to the Weitport Company quite independently, and I understand a steamer was secured at what was considered a moderate rate of freight, but for some reason or other, of which we are quite ignorant, the business fell through. lam inclined to think the whole inquiry was the result of a temporary alarm, and that as the feeling subsided tha business was allowed to drop.” !

It need only be said, with respect to this explanation, that we did not refer to, or intend to refer to, the Union Company specially,ior indeed at all. The official information on which the article was based did not name this company or any other. Consequently the accusation against us of attaotingtheUnion Company, or preferring the charges against it which Mr Mills mentions,(is not well founded. Still, we willingly publish Mr Mills’ explanation in case others may have put the same construction on the article as his.