Untitled

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 864, 22 January 1879, Page 2

A i-'inri'i-vivc which should receive careful I consideration at the hands of the Harbor j Board, if the credit of the port is to be ! maintained, has t.eeti made by Captain j p't.nvKRPU, of the steamer St. kttda. with reference to the detay which he ha* experienced in sett in"; his vessel discharged. The St. Kilda arrived in port vesterdav morning about eight o clock with a earyo of coal, but it was not until thW tuornimr that a berth was provided for her alonu'side either of the wharves. At the time of the St. Kitda's arrival the VVaitakt occupied one berth at the >oimaiiby Wharf, but the other was vacant. Captain Ftn-wSKwr naturally concluded that his vessel woutd be permitted to take the berth at the opposite side, but directly afterwards a sailing vessel was Wed in, and he received instructions to. remain in the stream. >»>", we were under the impression that the Hoard by resolution specialty declared ; that at the new wharf steamers should i have the preference, and if Mteh W the case, as we believe it is, though we have | ! not the resolution at hand to refer to, we I can scarcetv see whv the decision should have btien "departed from in this instance, more especially as, according to Captain Ft»wE-Rt>*Y's statement, the vessel to which the berth was given remained there idle the whole day. But even if such a resolution were not in existence, there _is another which very strongly applies in this case. The Board at a very' recent Meeting decided that in cases where a delay of four hours should occur in the loading of » vessel the Harbormaster should have pow«r to order her removal, and iCive the berth to the next in turn. This course does not appear to have been adopted, for what reason we know not. On Captain Ft.»>wr;Et»AY remonstrating,. the excuse offered was that there was no crane available, but this was more than met by the answer given that the steamer possessed a steam winch which wottUt perform the work of discharging the *»t. Kitda satisfactorily. Why the St. Kttda was not. on the pounds stated, allowed to take the berth is difficult to understand. The unnecessary delay experienced in her cargo out is a serious matter to her owners, for the expenses attached to a ■ boat of even her size are very great. It W to- the property attending to ot such matters, as these that the port depends f«r a good name from shipowners, and care should be taken to see that the speediest dwpab-h is given to all vessels. While there was only one berth there was some w El-grounded | excuse for vessets being detained in port, but in the present instance we fail to sec l wh-t excuse can be given.