The Bluff Road Traffic.

Southland Times, Issue 9090, 14 December 1885, Page 2

The Bluff Road Traffic.

Tbe following letter relative to the traffic on the Bluff road and tbe charges on the port line was received recently by the Chairman of the Southland County Council from the Minister for Pablic Works: —

Wellington, November 26th, 1885.

Sib,— l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 14th instant, forwarding me a resolution of the Southland County Council on the subject of railway rates and road traffic, and to thank you for the same. I shall be glad to receive information of any cases of cartage competition in your district, and any "representations so made shall receive immediate and careful consideration. Although the resolution now received from yon has a general bearing, 1 think it probable that it may be in* tended to have special reference to the railway and road between Invercargill and Bluff, This being so, I may say that the proposals made by the General Manager of Bailwavs to the Blufi Harbour Board on the occasion of' his recent visit have had the effect of doing away with the possibility of the recurrence of any cases of excessive ■ charges which have occasionally occurred under the general tariff rates, and ongntto prevent further, complaints about charges on that line. I take this opportunity of pointing out to you that the railway rates, which have to be paid by those who use the railways, have to include a sufficient amount to cover the cost of office accounting, collection of moneys, maintenance of the railway Hues, sleepers, buildings, waggons, and engines, in addition to the cost of handling, scoring, and conveying the goods. lam asked in. the case of the Bluff line to lower the railway rates to such an extent that they will not cover the cost of the services named abo*e, and to enforce this reduction a few consignees are endeavouring to carry imported goods by road ,- if this practice is persisted in it will serve to transfer part of the expense of importing to Invercargill from the importer to the ratepayer and the ratepayers of the district would have top *y more than \it the railway were ueed,.as the cartage and maintenance of roads together will be much more expensive than if toe railway <vere used at the current rates, and at the same time by reducing traffic on the railway increase the charge to the general body of taxpayers, ucleas the accommodation mow afforded by railway is largely curtailed, The Bluff line in respect of goods ratrs is already more favoured than other port lines relatively! and I cannot acquiesce in thß very exaggerated statements which are now oircu* lated io the district, to the effect that the rates are unreasonable I nor is it probable i that although cartage is being done it can be remuneratively carried on at the rates stated ; to be paid for it, namely, 6s per ton dead weight all round from the wharf to the merchants' stores in Invercargill ; neither can I recognise the present competition as legitimate. I could understand your Council asking for reduction to lowest rates possible for locally manufactured goods, but in the case of the Bluff line the reduction asked for is on imported goods. The general public cannot be aufferera by the present railway rates from the Blufi to lavercargil), which, as you are. doubtless aware, now are, for all heavy goods from the wharf, Bluff, to merchants' stores, Invercargill, 7s lOd per ton, and for light measurement goods thfl highest rates are 15s Sd per ton, dead weight; but they will be sufferers to the extent to which they allow themselves to be taxed for the purpose of making and improving the roads in order to relieve those who now use the railway from payment of reasonable rates for seivices rendered. You will, no doubt, give this the same publicity as was given to your Council's resoJotion.—l have, etc,, Ii>WARD BIOHABDSOH, Minister for Pablic Works. In reply to the above the following letter has been forwarded :— Invercargill, Dec. 8, 1885. Sir— l have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 26, 1886,* and, in reply, to thank you f.jryour promise of consideration of matter already placed. before you in regard to railway charges' forcing traffic on to roads, and thereby an* duly increasing the burden of ratepayers, The roads referred to in Council's resolution are in various parts of the county, some of the most striking examples being the main, east, north, and western roads leading from In ver carer ill, and the Bluff Road. On the three first mentioned of these roads a heavy timber and produce traffic, and a return traffic in stores and supplies for the settlers, i have, for some time past, been forced, and are still carried on. -In regard to the Bluff line of railway, you admit that occasional instances of excessive charging have occurred, but such instances would have been of fre* quent occurrence had sot these .actoal ex. : ceesive charges effectually pie vented importation of goods by the Bluff line, it being cheaper to carry most kinds of goods 150 or 140 miles from Port Chalmers, or the Port of Punedin, to Invercargill,' than 18 miles from the port of Bluff to Invercargill. Bef erring to the last paragraph pi page two., of your letter, where you point oat that . office aceouals, collection. 6f moneys, maintenance of lines, engines, etc.,- and handling of goods, etc., havejfcp be provided for, we prejgme that such matters are onjy the uaual accbm- T pauiment; of railways, but as long a? ;youf* render import trade impossible by the Bluff line, yes aifSCfelj' W&m%Q ftU; y!Q9$&$M

revenue to^meet these claims which you enumerate, and by discouraging import trade you drtconrage export, as the one is intip mttely conDected with the other. Farther, if. good|§ar6 carriwt. at rates from 17s 6d to *25s§d^p' ton dead weight from the port of Dunediri or from Port Chalmers to InyercarJgUJ^distances of "150 and 10milesrespectively, it stands to reason that a aomewhat proportionate charge far distance should be L maaefo.r.fQQ 18 miles flow the poct^ot'-JBlaff-to ;Invercare;ili, tho moe so as the railway department are not managers for local railwayy qompany, but for rtej-^lpipartiali administratioir 6f the property of the taxI attention to the fact tlftt the maintenance of common roads is ihcalculably more costly s thaii the maintenance of railway lines, and ■from i colonial point -of view, the Bailway, Department should^ . ao arrange their" freights ;for short distances from main centres;.aa te attract the traffic fromtheron ; do *o should Involve a ilightiiawStol ;pepartmedt,'as snchloßS would^imwrethaiL compensated for by the 'large saving" to thef: in making and maintaining roads v _parallel. "As for the cost of carriage qi goods ifcptaf • the VBluffi itor InvercafgiU being transferred (owing to the cost of- road- repairs) ifrom the importer to the ■-? ratepayer, the ; argument is f nllacious, as the flavinjriofTicosfcT ion importation goes to the: ratepayer very soon, the merchants being obliged to reduce • their: prices to the utmbsf through cbmpeti;' tion in, trade, and I would point oat that the com rav i ni ty is s till taxed for* an nnavail'i able railway. In' referr nc e to pißge!'4'bjE your : letter, the question of the ■ late poet line: '- scales ' of charging has been so tbof onghlj : sifted, that the difference in the figures of th« • Varibqs tables of charges being apparently in favourof the BtuflE line as compared tirith Lyttelfoii and. Port Chalmers^ has been dispelled, owing to the /fact tHat'ypur Departmenb habitually insisted in the charge by measureajent on the Bluffline and fo ena«*vourod apparently to force a:r^inoTO"iat»'<)utr :of the impbttersV but practically prevented importation. In reply to another remark, referring to the carriage of locally , manufacttired goods, I; may state that this- Opuiicil cannot look upoa the subject orily.as regards: exports, bat also as to reasonable facilities , for local imports, for no expdit t:ade can be' carried on advantageously , without corresponding facilities being given for importa.; tion. I have only' to add' that this would urge on your Government the necewity of making IM^ iaUways lavailaMß for?tie? goods traffio now forced onall the &am roads parallel with rail ways, as by 'id' doing the setUeis will ; bnly have what they are entitled to, and the Government will' benefit 'by extended settlement and industry, and, consequently, increased^, railway traffic— l hate, etc., _ ' Oird G. W. Hast, Chairman Southlaßd'Gounty Council.