THE HARBOUR BOARD AND THE DOCKS. To THE EDITOR.

Observer, Volume XVI, Issue 952, 27 March 1897, Page 2

THE HARBOUR BOARD AND THE DOCKS. To THE EDITOR.

Sib, — In your issue of 20th inst. you make certain statements regarding the manner in which recent applications at the Harbour Board office for the use of the Auckland Dock have been dealt with, and allege that local ships have been put to inconvenience by a suggested partiality shown to foreigners. As the incidents cited by you either have non occurred or are completely misrepresented in your article, I beg to ask you to allow me space to state the true facts. You state that the Charles P. Crocker was improperly admitted to the Auckland Dock, and that ' Heaven only knows ' when Bhe ' will be floated out again.' Long before your article appeared, the Charles P. Crocker was out of dock and lying alongside the Railway Wharf, the captain having finished the work required to be done in the dock within the time he stated when making his application for the use of the dock. You say the ' barque Devonport, which wanted to go in, has had to leave, and will probably be docked elsewhere." This is incorrect. The barque Devonport could not arrange to dock here before the Charles P. Crocker, and the captain stated that he would dock here on his return. You say, ' the brig Vision, after waiting four or five days for a chance of being docked, was to sail on Wednesday and will be docked in Sydney.' Long before your article appeared, the Vision had been docked in the Auckland Dock, undocked and was lying alongside Quay-street Jetty. You say 'the Mission schooner Southern Cross has been waiting a week for an opportunity to get into the small dock, and is still waiting.' A day before your article appeared, the Southern Cross had been .docked in the Auckland Dock, undocked, and was lying in the stream. You say ' the Clansman, Terranora and Osprey are still waiting to get into the small dock, but they will probably have to wait for the Greek Kalends.' No application to dock has been received from any person on behalf of the Terranora or Osprey, and the Harbour Board officers surely cannot be expected to know what is passing in the minds of shipowners, until the latter reveal their thoughts in the form of an application or intimation of some sort that they desire to dock a vessel. The Clansman's application was granted in strict conformity with the by laws of the Board, and she is to dock leforc the Sea King, which is not to follow the Charles P. Crocker. As to the steamer Admiral, which you say 'for want of other docking conveniences has been put on the hard,' no application has been received to dock the Admiral. In short, your informant has for his own purposes completely misre presented the facts in every case.

The treatment accorded to the American vessels, Charles P. Crocker and Sea King, both of which put in here in distress, was such as, in my judgment, the necessities of the case required. I intimated to the officer in charge of the harbour that it was my desire tbat the vessels should not be put to any unnecessary expense, but receive equal treatment with our own local vessels. The law requires the Harbour Board to give the fullest facilities to distressed vessels, in -most cases without charge. Even had the law not required it, I do not think there are many in the community who would be inclined to subject to unnecessary expense a vessel belonging to our kin across the sea putting into this port in distress.

I do ,not complain of yonr criticisms, and am pleased to notice that the Obsebver is taking an interest in Harbour Board matters. Rumours of the kind referred toby youbal

been circulated in town by interested parties, and it is just as well that they have been published, in order that the true facts may "be given. I may say that, as a Chairman of the Board, I shall always .welcome criticism, and shall not be disposed to altogether ignore statements as to the administration of the Board's affairs, even if any such statements should be merely nickel plated and not of sterling metal.— l' am, &c , W. J. Napibb.

We muat compliment Mr Napier upon the way in which he dodges oat of an awkward situation. It is a way clever lawyers have got. Bat notwithstanding all his good-natored qnibbling, Mr Napier demonstrates oar argument conclusively that there waß a rush of business at the Auckland Graving Dock, and that the Calliope Dock ought to have been utilised to relieve this rush instead of being allowed to stand idle and ' eat its own head off ' with expenses, as it is doing. And now for the details over which Mr Napier quibbles. Our article was written on Tuesday morning of last week. On Tuesday afternoon, Mr Niccol brought the state of things which we condemned before the Harbour Board at its ordinary meeting. On Tuesday evening, there was great and unusual bustle amongst the Harbour Board officials, and forthwith the C. F. Crocker was hustled out of the dock willy-nilly. Even then, if she had drawn as much water as they thought (lift 6in), they would not have got her out of the dock till the latter part of the week, but it was fortunately discovered that an error had been made, and she only drew 10 feet 6 inches. Hence the speed. Since then, the officials have been docking vessels two at a time as fast as they can, and the dock has been constantly occupied, and yet the block will not end until Friday next, or exactly ten days after the C. F. Crocker job was completed. Moreover, the Examiner was to have gone into the dock a fortnight ago last Monday, according to her application, and yet fourteen days elapsed beyond that before she got her turn.

It is quite true, as Mr Napier "quibbles, that the brig Vision and Mission sshooner Southern Cross had been docked when our article appeared. But they were waiting when the article was written, and the Southern Cross had been waiting fourteen days. No application had been made for the Terranora and Osprey, because a guinea has to be deposited with each application, and owners of vessels are not going to deposit guineas when they see no prospect of the dock being disengaged, knowing as they do that when a vacant day happens the vessel must be ready to take advantage of it, no matter where she is or how engaged, or forfeit the guinea. The facts concerning the barque Devonport are given on the word of the master of that vessel. Surely he is to be believed. Also, the truth of his statement is attested by the fact that he put his vessel on the ' hard ' before he left. However, as we have said, and as Mr Napier has admitted, there was a block at the Auckland Graving Dock. Sound business principles should have prompted the Harbour Board to utilise the Calliope Dock, which was lying idle.until that block was relieved.