Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-10-13
wHARFAGE CaARGEs AGAIN. =
FIpALoo, ". T., Oot. 6, 1885.

ASsAoSB " A-f wv W A-Sts
EDrToR Posr- r-ISrKLLIoKxcxR:
In yoar WEEKLY of the lst inst. 10 sn
article on excessive wharfage charges
on small packages at Seattle, taken from
the snohomish papers. You also pub
lish an interview with Mr.. Foster. in
which be states the grievance" is
founded npon "absslate falsehood. -
Ny experience goes 10 prove the eriev-
anoe Is founded upon absolute facts,
and Mr.. Fosters statement false, which
u not hard matter to prove, az | have
the vhsrfage bills from which the fol.
lsviug statement 10 taken, sll receipted
by Ar. Foster, aud be cannos 90 back
Of the returns. He states be charges l5
cents for q keg Of sugar, and 10 cents
Tor smaller packages l have his re-
ceipt for . cents wharfage ou kes Of
sugar, and as for the 10 and Is cents
charges they are fsw and far between,
and the free packages thai hs receipts
for and puts on board have mot yet pus
IN an appearance.
Here follows statement Of packages
received by Mr.. Munks since Nay lss,
1854. These embraced 81. and we're in
ciuded In 10 different bills and ship
nents- Mr.. Munks gives the aggregate
weight OF these packages at go pounds.
the freight charges at fI.D and ths
wharfage here at t3.7O
You will &c by tue above statement
that the wharf charges are extorsionate
and they come very heavy on country
merchants who have small packages by
nearly every boat. The statement shows
q freight charge Of 81 80. and a wharf
age charge Of $40 on 955 pounds Of
freight-nesrly $25 per ton freight and
wharfage, and about 81 per ton for
wharfage alone. Ii 10 about time there
was change in Rates. Where a person
does not get more than one or two pack
ages In a year IL does net amosnt to
much. but where you get them three or
-four times . week it counts mp. should
like TO hear from some of the rest of the
country merchants on the subject, and
few comments Oh the subjsst by the
editor would not be oat Of place:
NM. MUNKs.
As suggested by Mr.. Munks, We have
investigated the matter, and We cannot
End anything in 1t discreditable to Mr..
Foster or In conflict with his previous
assertion. The keg Of sugar to which
Mr.. Munks refers was twice on the
wharf-ouoe being taken by the steamer
W. 4. Munros and returned, and the
other time BY the Washington. Ii was
twice receipted for, twice taken care of
and all for Is cents. Weuld Mr..
Munks do more for the money ? He is
a whar6nQer, also, aud IL common re-
port Ia true, he would have charged
more for the double service than Mr..
Fsster did. Mr.. Munks says "ths ten
and fifteen cent charges are few and far
between" Yet In the list he sends they
number ssven out of nineteen-neasly
one-third-not including the keG of
sugar, which would add two more. II
was Dot fair for Mr.. Munks to reckon
his goods by the pound. Ii 10 not cos
tomsry TO do that here, at FidalQo, Nor
elsewhere. The goods he Qot weighed
less than half a ton, but measured over
twe tons, and the common vsy of
charging Ia by measurement. His
charges are a little under 20 cents
apiece. and We do not believe there is .
wharf on Puget Sound where they
would have been less. The charge
made in the Snohomish papers was /:
" No matter how small. II the parcel
does not weigh over Q single pound, or
does net exceed 25 cents In value, the
full sum of % cents Is charged for
wharfage At Seattle" Mr.. Munks bills
certainly disprove this charge. and be,
being a merchant. probably had pack
ages above the average In size.