NO DELAYS TO SHIPPING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16494, 3 August 1921, Page 7

NO DELAYS TO SHIPPING.

JULY A RECORD MONTH. PROTEST ACAINSt SPYING. The report presented to the Lyttelton Harbour Board to-day by the engineer stated that there had been no delaj's to shipping at Lyttelton during July, either in regard to berthing, labour or trucks. Mr Williams stated that in acoordance with the board’s instructions to supply more detailed information as to delays to shipping in Lyttelton, he had circularised the shipping agenda asking them to supply a weekly statement of any delays to shipping, and they had mostly agreed to do so. The harbourmaster and the board’s officer in charge at Lyttelton had also been instructed t-o report weekly on the same form. The harbourmaster had verbally, and in a written report, protested against making these reports on the ground that his espionage of the work of the Railway Department was causing friction between him and the officers of that Department. Mr 11. Holland said that he regretted that an officer of the board should make a protest against the carrying out of. his duty. He saw no reason wliv friction should occur. The engineer read a letter from the harbourmaster, .who stated that the managers and agents of the shipping companies were asked to supply any information in connection with the matter. This they all promised to do. but only the New’ Zealand Shipping Company, the Shaw. Savill Company and F. E. Sutton and Co. redeemed their promise, and that only for a short time. No reports had been received from the shipping companies for some time, and, as he could only report in a general way without inside information, the veracity of his statements would lie challenged. Why LVs course had been followed by the very people the board wished to assist, it was difficult toi say. His own efforts at inquiry had led to a good deal of friction between all parties. In any case, his duties required his constant attendance at his office. He regretted to state that he had to complain that the stationmasteris conduct tow*ards him on two occasions had hardly been in accordance with his position as harbourmaster. He suggested that he should be relieved of this duty, or that it should be delegated to someone in a freer position. The chairman ' said that Contain Thorpe had given him the substance of the letter and a little more, and it was not only Captain Thorpe that was concerned, but the whole of the board s officers. He thought they should be relieved of the duty. The engineer (Mr Cyrus Williams) said that the shipping agents had agreed to supply the information. He could not see how friction could be avoided otherwise. Mr Holland said that the Railway Department had no right to abuse the board’s officers. Mr Sorensen said that when any suggestion was made to a Government official that he was not doing his duty he “ got on his hind legs.” Still, he believed that the harbourmaster should be relieved of the duties. Mr F. Horrell moved that the harbourmaster should be relieved of the duty, seeing that the shipping companies had now r agreed to supply the information. Mr H. T. Armstrong said that it would he a weak-kneed attitude, both for the harbourmaster and the board to adopt. He moved, as an amendment, that the hoard should support Captain Thorpe in carrying out the work. Mr F. G Norton said that he would support Mr Armstrong, although he did not deny that the present stationmaster had greatly improved the truck shortage. The board should not allow any officer to run aw r ay from his duty. Mr Horrell’s motion was carried by seven votes to four.