171

a—3

may state, as supplementary to what I have quoted from my memorandum to the Minister, that I was strongly of opinion that the great difficulty in the way of economical working of the mines was the want of sufficient storage ; that had there been sufficient storage a much less number of men would have sufficed to have met all the requirements, whereas by the interruptions that now go on in the navigation of the port a large number of men are required to meet the exigencies when a number of vessels get in together. Consequently the staff in the mine has to be very much greater than it would be if it could be worked consecutively and regularly all the year round ; and the rate per ton which has to be paid to these men in order to afford them reasonable w 7 ages for their year's work has to be much higher than if they could work continuously and earn a day's wages every day. 3588. The Commissioners took evidence from Mr. Martin on the subject, he having carefully considered it, and we propose to read to you a portion of his evidence, and you might then make any remarks upon it. [The Chairman then read Mr. Martin's evidence from page 52.] Having heard these suggestions of Mr. Martin's, what remark have you to make upon them ?—What I understand Mr. Martin to say, in effect, is that he has considered three alternatives for the storage of coal— (I) By additional trucks, to cost £40,000; (2) by staiths (700 ft. in length) alongside the river, to cost £30,000 ; (3) by bins entirely on the shore, to cost £6,000 —but that it should also be borne in mind that whereas the staiths alongside the river would provide some 700 ft. additional wharfage that this would not be provided by either of the other alternatives, and that, if additional wharfage (or berthage) came to be required, it would be necessary to add £13,000 for 700 ft. of wharfage to each of the other alternatives to put them on a par with the staiths plan. This would make the plan by trucks £53,000, and the plan by bins £19,000. My own opinion on the subject, after having thought carefully about it, and having now heard what Mr. Martin has said, is that, if storage is to be provided at the port at all rather than at the mines, a modified form of storage by trucks, such as has already been suggested by Sir James Hector himself, would probably be better than any of the other alternatives mentioned. The 330 trucks estimated for by Mr. Martin would cost, as he says, £120 each, amounting in all to £40,000, but the bodies of these coal-trucks, which are made to lift off, would not, I think, cost probably more than £30 a piece, and 330 of these at £30 would come to, say, £10,000, or, allowing for stands and other contingencies, say, £12,000. The alternative I should propose, therefore, would be to provide not 330 entirely complete trucks, but 330 bodies of trucks, and not to discharge them into anything whatever —bins or otherwise— but to provide staging or platforms at each side of, say, two lines of rails on spare ground in the vicinity of the wharf on which these truck bodies could be stacked by means of a travelling crane, and there is a 12-ton steam travelling crane at Greymouth now which would, I think, suit the purpose. There are also several cranes at Westport which will be available in the course of time. As Mr. Martin says, the expense of doing this stacking would be practically nil, as the time wdien such stacking is required must manifestly be when no ships are requiring to be loaded, and when, consequently, the present wharf-cranes and their staff would be idle. I should not, however, recommend that these additional truck bodies should be provided unless the coal-owners agree to pay something for the advantages which they would thus attain, either in the shape of a contribution towards the cost or else an additional rate per ton. I think, in fact, that, if the Government entertains the proposal at all, the companies should be invited to at least contribute towards the cost of the work. A constant supply of coal available for ships without delay would no doubt be a benefit to the colony at large, but it must also manifestly be a benefit to the coal-owners. On many of the English railways, in order to obtain that amount of convenience which is necessary for their business, the coal-owners provide some, if not the whole, of the trucks required to work their mines, and it would not be altogether unreasonable, therefore, to expect the coal-owners in this case to provide the whole of these extra truck bodies if they wish to have them, or else to provide storage themselves in whatever other form they think best. Possibly, however, the Government or the Harbour Board might reasonably advance the money required on a guarantee of interest, or on the strength of an additional charge for the haulage and handling of the coal. The Chairman: The method you have now referred to, of the extra hopper bodies, was mentioned to Mr. Martin, who considered it, but for some reason or other dismissed it. 3589. Mr. Moody.] Do you think it would be likely that the coal-owners would contribute towards supplying these wagon bodies, as they, of course, would have no control over them ?—I can only say that if I were managing one of the coal companies I would immediately go in for a system of storage, as I believe it would pay them handsomely. It must, I think, be manifest to anybody who really looks into the matter that the rates the companies have to pay their men are far higher than would be necessary if the men could get constant work all the year round—that is to say, if they could make full time ; or, in other words, that dividing the work amongst such a lot of men as are necessary in consequence of the interruptions to navigation involves the companies paying higher rates for cutting the coal than would be necessary if the hands were reduced, as they could be by providing sufficient storage; and I feel quite satisfied that the saving in the cost of working the mine which might thus be attained would bo considerably more than the interest on the cost of providing this storage. 3590. Do you not think it more likely that the coal-owners would supply a certain number of wagons themselves, which would be their own property?—lf they did so it would be much more expensive. It would cost £40,000 that way. 3591. But I mean if they supplied a portion of them ?—But, why spend £40,000 if £12,000 will do ? The only difference is the matter of lifting these wagon bodies off the trucks and placing them alongside a spare line, which would be done at a time when there would be practically nothing else doing. 3592. Mr. Broivn.] Do you contemplate that tho coal-owners should contribute to the capital cost of furnishing these bodies?—l should say it would not be unreasonable to expect them to provide the whole of it, or else to pay interest on it. 24—C. 3.