TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13841, 1 March 1909, Page 6

TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

To the Editor of the "Timaru Herald." Sir, —It was with extreme surprise and (regret that il perused your captious) aud unfair leader of this morning, on the annual report of the Board's operations for 1908. ' It becomes my duty, as chairman of the Board, to at once enter our strong protest against an article which traduces the port, and place before your readers the actual facts, which will prove sufficient justification of all that was stated in the report, which you have felt it incumbent to criticise. ,- I think that $. sHiall be able to demonstrate that instead of the report being of a misleading nature, that charge lies at your own door: . I will do, this as concisely as possible, though necessarily it must be at some length. You state tliat, "In last year's report the comparison was made between the returns for 1907 and those for 1898, instead of "taking the full decade as usual. "Now 1898 hoppened to be a slack year." Here are other figures:— 1896. 1897. 189 S. tons. tons. tons. Shipping ... 154,923 191,565 193,282 Imports and exports ... 89,862 83,875 78,518 Value of im-

ports and ex- ., ports (not fro*stal £ £ £ „ Itrade 629,171 622,809 636,389 B, e v ten u e i .

(apart from _ harbour rate) 13,024 13,467 12,552 These figures clearly show that the increase, year by year, is steady, and that 1898 cannot by any stretch of imagination -be designated a ''slack" or '.'dull" year, for while, admittedly, there is a comparatively small shrinkage in imports and exports, and revenue, there was an increase in the value or the imports and exports, and in shipping. If there had been a shrinkage of thirty or forty per cent., then 1898 might have been designated as "slack" or "dull."

* Xou refer to a calculation in "last year's report"' that the trade of the port had increased 138 per cent. There was no reference to this matter at all in last year's report, but in the 11907 report a statement made by the chairman of rthe Lyttelton Harbour I Board, and so stated, was quoted, and the quotation made no reference whatever to the trade of the port. What I was said, and what is a fact, was that the value of the trade of the port had increased 138 per cent. (When Mr Laurenson's figures were published they appeared as only 105 per cent, increase for Timaru, but on his attention being drawn to the fact that the increase was 138 per cent., he very graciously admitted his error.) Let me point out here that while you think it necessary to decry the) progress made, Mr Laurenson was gracious enough to give us credit for the leading position we occupied m the whole Dominion, while lus own port could only show 68 per cent, of increase, being second bottom. When you are laying yourself out to attack the of a local body, yon should be absolutely sure ot >our ground ot criticism first. Anyway, even as you state, the trade shows an increase of 92 per cent, for the period under review, and surely this should give ample cause for congratulation. * The proprietors of any business concern would bo highly delighted to record 92 per cent, of an increase in ten years. As for the comparison being made with 1898 and not with 1897, we are not responsible that Mr Laurensqn iv as one year less than the decade. We merely quoted what he said, and gave the years. But if he had taken the fujl decade, the percentage of increase would have been even greater than 138 per cent. So surely there can be nothing unfair or misleading about the matter. My figures were for 1908, and the ten-yearly comparison must necessarily be made with 1898, not 1899. To make a proper comparison, I could not compare with any other year. I might as well have compared them with 1879 as 1899, if there is any logic in your argument. Further, if you will look at the 1907 report you will see that the same method of comparison is adopted, 1907 as against 1897, the same the previous year, 1906 as against 1896, and so on. Thus you will see that there is consistency all the way through; so surely your statement," not fairly - made," cannot be maintained. If the comparison had been made with 1899, as you say, even -although that year saw the commencement of shipments to the South African war, there is still an increase of 80 per cent, in the shipping, and this should be sufficient to be proud of, and it is intolerable that your columns should be charged with such "croaking criticism. Further, to compare 1908 with 1899 would- be unfair, seeing that that year and subsequent years were abnormal years, consequent on the war- shipments. . Let me now give the figures you have omitted from your excerpts from the report, to show Tiow the percentages were arrived at. "S" stands for shipping, "T." for trade, and "R" for revenue (apart from harbour rate): —

« $ • » ~ 2 . gs §§ |§ Sg §5 £«: S. ... 191!362 434,262 239,900 123 T. 78,518 156,892 78,374 100 £ £ £ JR. ... 12,552 26,119 13,567 108 To fuither show how unwisely you have written, let me point out that while the size of the vessels has undoilbtedly increased, theie Ims also been a very marked increase in the number of vessels. Thus, while 254 vessels enteivd the port m 1898, 356 entered last year. There was no occasion whatever to deal with this aspect of the increase, or in the mode you adopt. The various averages you comment on do not disprove, what has been stated. The mode of percentages which you adduce* can well be termed a mere juggling in percentages. They serve no good purpose whatever, and only tend to minimise to the lowest degree the advancement of the port. I feel that, as 1 stated again at the meeting yesterday, that the people of' our district can be congratulated on the continuous tadvaneement (which the district and port are making, and it was' but my duty to lay stress on the fact that there had t been such magnificent increases as compared with the corresponding year of the previous decade. I observe in reading the reports of some of the other Harbour Boards that we are not singular, for they take every opportunity to bring out prominently the good points connected with .their ports. Why are our efforts to be stigmatised in the fashion you have adopted? Apart from this, it seems to me that the Board's operations presented a splendid opportunity

for you to write? Approvingly and encouragingly, and it is to be regretted that instead of writing in a manner calculated to belittle the welfare of the-.port, you choose to adopt the part of a captious critic—l ani, etc., JAMES CRAIGIE, . ; Chairman T.H.B. 27/2/09. . ,-.'■

Chamberlain's, Cough Remedy has proved" itself, times' out of number, to be an absolutely safe and reliable remedy. Analysis has proved that it contains no narcotics, and experience has proved its unfailing efficacy in coughs, colds, croup, influenza, and even in warding ,off pneumonia. Doesn't your common_£ense prompt you to purchase a bottle now and keep it in the' house for cases of emergency? If it doesn't it should. For sale everywhere.' ...