1844.1 



of a Pier at Madras. 



55 



I suppose in addition to this, an impost of twenty Pagodas per 100 tons 

 burthen was levied for all such vessels as come alongside the Pier, dis*» 

 charge their cargo, and water without boats, this vessel being supposed 

 seventy tons, shall pay Pagodas fourteen. 



Suppose also, a duty of one per cent was levied on the amount of the 

 cargo, in addition to, and in the same manner valued at the present es- 

 tablished duties, in this instance, seventeen garce at sixty Pagodas per 

 garce, one-thousand bags shall further pay Pagodas ten, making a total 

 of Pagodas twenty-eight, whereby it appears there would be an actual 

 saving of eight Pagodas, being nearly fifteen per cent on her port expenses, 



But as large vessels could not come along side the Pier, but must 

 either make use of their own boats or of lighters, which might be equally 

 expensive, I propose lowering the rate of wharfage in their favor one 

 half, or to ten Pagodas per hundred tons burthen, which I should hope, 

 would secure to them the same proportional saving; while the duty of 

 one pes: cent upon all merchandize, indiscriminately, whether landed or 

 shipped, will be considered as very moderate compensation for the great 

 advantages derived from the saving of time, the ease of doing business 

 and the security of merchandize in general ; and is not, I am credibly in- 

 formed, more than equal to the peculation alone committed in Masula 

 boats, which would by this Pier, be prevented, as the opportunity for 

 committing it would no longer exist. 



It has been argued against this scheme, that as the " adoption of this 

 Pier, would do away the establishment of Masula boats ; suppose an ene- 

 my should destroy the Pier, or render the destruction of it advisable to 

 prevent his landing, in that case, where there are no Masula boats, how 

 is the communication with a fleet requiring supply, to be kept up." 



In reply to this objection I shall only ask, is it a just mode of argu- 

 ment to state in opposition to certain advantages, which cannot well be 

 denied the extreme possibility of an occurrence, from whence there might 

 eventually arise a remote chance of inconvenience, and does it follow, 

 even admitting this possibility, that the present difficulty and danger of 

 communication should be continued, because an enemy might at some 

 future period interrupt an easier mode, if adopted. 



Neither is it just to suppose that, even should an enemy or ourselves, 

 from apprehension of an enemy, destroy this Pier, that we are then left 

 without means of communicating with our own shipping, and affording 

 them supplies. 



