The Brunswick times. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 188?-1900, 1897-04-14
Shows Up the inconsistencies
of the Various Claims
Against Him.
CALLS IT COMMERCIAL NAUSEA
And Gives "OId scow" Dg-The Pori
Charges at Brunswick Much Less
Than at Other Ports.
To the Editor of The Times;

To the Editor of The Times;
DEAR SIR: have read with much in
terest the replies to A F. Churchill's
personal inquiries relative to harbor
dues and harbor regulat tons at the diff
ferent American ports, from Boston,
Mass, to Mobile, Ala. If these replies,
as published in the Evening Advertiser
of the Sth instant. are correct, | fail to
see where any change could be made IN
the regulations now in force at this
port that would benefit shipping and
do justice to the tax payers. 1t would
seem, Mr.. Editor, that the Advertiser
would pay the harbor master salary
out of the city treasury and charge
vessels nothing for this service, or if
a change should be made, that it go
into the city treasury.
The former proposition would GER
tainly not be to the interest of the tax
payers and the second would not suit
the only objectors to the present or
dinance, Churchill and Mallory, as it
would offer no relief to them. 1t ap-
pears from the replies above referred
to that every port between Boston and
Mobile, both inclusive, have in force
ordinances regulating the shipping.
1t is, therefore, to be presumed that
these laws are necessary, and they only
differ as to the manner these officers
are paid. Some are paid out of the
city treasury and others by the ship.
ping. Take the New York regulations,
Zone of the largest shipping points of
the world) and Mr.. Churchill's great
discovery is that ships are required to
pay a wharfage fee one-half of one
cent per ton per day. Now, let us take
the last steamer that Mr.. Churchill
loaded, viz, the Werneth Hall, and
compare this special item of harbor
dues with that of Brunswick and note
the difference.
This vessel is 2,66S tons register.
She arrived on March 4, 1897, and left
the dock on April 2, 1897. She there
fore remained at the dock twenty nine
days. New York dock dues are one
half of one cent per ton, 1888 per
day-twenty-nine days-$3S6 81; har-
Dor fees at Brunswick, SIS; dock
charges at New York exceed harbor-
master fees at Brunswick, $371.57.
1t would evidently not suit Mr..
Churchill to adopt the New York plan,
and would knock the Advertisers re-
form ideas into cooked hat, and put
the editor to sleep IN the first round.
MIR. Churchili's Boston letter seems
to be quite short, and if the Advertiser
published the entire letter the writer
evidently had but little time TO spare
in replying to his inquiries. This re-
ply only states that the harbormaster
is paid salary and there are no fees
which he collects. This may be true,
but it does not signify that some fee is
not collected by the city government.
The harbor master at Philadelphia
according to the Advertiser and
ChurchilD is paid by the state of
Pennsylvania, the city having nothing
to do with it, which is not, however,
the case in Georgia.
at Baltimore, wharfage is charged
to the ship (accOrding to the above
authority and 20 per cent. of it goes
to the dock or harbor master, evi-
IDENTIFY to pay his salary.
Norfolk, Portsmouth and Whining
ton all collect fees $50 says the same
authority and Pensacola assesses a
charge Of 81 per hundred tons upon the
registered tonnage of each yes ell.
Churchill and the Advertiser say
further that Mobile pays her har-
Dor master $1,000 per annum out of
the city treasury and that, while the
harbor authorities at New Orleans are