THE TARANAKI TROUBLE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1746, 21 January 1888, Page 4

THE TARANAKI TROUBLE.

Reverting to the subject of the awkward position of affairs m Taranaki m connection with the fiarbor wotks at New Plymouth, and the consequent burdens which have fallen upon the unhappy ratepayers, it is only right to point out that the blame of permitting this state of things to come about rests upon the Parliament which sat m 1881, and especially upon the Hall-Atkinson Government. For it will be remerrbered that m that year Mr E. G. Wright, then member for Coleridge, moved for and obtained a Committee of Enquiry into the proposed harbor works expenditure at New Plymouth, which Committee, after going exhaustively into the question and taking all available evidence, brought up a report m which they found to the following effect :— " That the cost of constructing the breakwater to a point at whioh it would be at all beneficial would be, at the lowest estimate, £212,396, while the total available funds were £115,000. " That &b this latter Bum would only carry the work into 11 or 12 feet of wator, at lowwater spring tides, whioh would practically be of little use, the extension to the point ! above referred to would necessitate further borrowing being authorised, and would entail a still larger burden upon owners of property within the rating district. "That even if extended as above, the harbor would only be available for vessels of the olasi of the steamer Hawea. 11 That the evidence disproved the supposition that the work would be of Bpeoial value to the colony as a harbor of refoge, and that therefore it must be regarded as of a looal and not a colonial oharaoter. •• That the results from the proposed works would be altogether inadequate to the expenditure required." • And m accordance with these findings and, seeing that up to that time but a very limited sum, not exceeding ,- had been expended upon the [ breakwater, apart from plant, the Com- ! mittee recommended the Legislature "to 1 at once take steps to stop the further J progress of the works, to take over the ; assets and liabilities, and, after provid- | ing for the latter, to devote the Land , Fund to its ordinary purposes." Mr Wright, to whom belongs the ■ credit of doing his utmost to prevent, ' if possible, the incurring of what he 1 regarded as likely to prove, and which I there is only too much reason to feai I has proved, useless and wasteful expen< , diture, moved the adoption of the Com. . mittee's report with a request to the 1 Government, to introduce during the 1 then session a Bill to give effect thereto I and m so doing contended that " the ( loan was not sufficient for the work . and that the Harbor Board had rushed t into expenditure without authority, ir : order to commit the district to the 1 undertaking before the plan could be I considered on its merits." He alsc : contended that " bearing m mind the j character oi the imports and exports— for it is not a grain-producing country, and is not likely to be one for generations to come — the saving upon such exports — butter, cheese, skins, and tallow — would be merely nomina*, ir exchange for the very heavy tax which the settlers would have to contribute.' Hs showed that the effect ot the neces sary harbor dues would be to drive th< trade to Waitara or Opunake, and tha Waitara is four miles nearer to three fourths of the settlers of Taranak than the port of New Plymouth ; thai there were special engineering difficulties to be encountered, among which he mentioned "the shifting sands- ai likely to be troublesome, even although the breakwater was completed," anc after pertinently asking what gain coulc m such circumstances accrue to the colony m return for the 25 per cent, o the Land Fund contributed toward; the cost of the harbor works, concluded an able speech by stating lhat hi! action m the matter had been dictated by a strong sense of diry. He said— we quote fr.om / Vol. XL of Hansard p. 19— "I feel that the interest of the settlers m that part of the colon) demands that a change should b< effected. I look upon m this light and m this light only— that nheihei we allow borrowed money to be wasted through the agency of the Governmeni and this House, or through the agency of a number of corporate bodie.< throughout the colony, the loss to the public is the same. The interest or that borrowed money has to be met, We have, during the last year or two, felt the heavy nature of this charge upon our resources, and I think it ij the duty of every member m this House to strive, by every legitimate means m his power, to put an end to every atom o( useless and unprofitable expenditure, and endeavour, as far as possible, to lighten the burden of taxation.' 1 On that occasion an amendment was moved by the Premier, Mr Hall, affirming that m the opinion of the House, the Government should bring m a Bill to appoint a Parliamentary Commission to report upon the New Plymouth Harbor scheme, (a) as to its utility and practicability; (b) as to its financial position and property; and (c) as to the fairness of rating equally or otherwise all the land included within the present rating district," which amendment was agreed, to with the following important addition, moved by Mr Wright viz :-« The Bill to provide for the suspension of all further expenditure U u l ! , r report. eport Of Ruch Commission shall have been considered and decided on by this House, except m so far as may be necessary to prevent injury to works already executed, or t > material m possession of the Board, which expenditure shall be directed and defrayed by the Government out of funds m the possess : on of the Board." Yet we are not aware that any such Commission was ever appointed. Certainly no such Bill was ever introduced. In iBBa-rhe Whitaker-Atkinson Adnwi* tration being then m power-io answer to a question by Mr Walt, Mr Dick said that the Government had no intention of introducing the New Plymouth Harbor Commission B 11 during that session, and no such Bill was then or has since been introduced, nolwith!la^?-* h .e definite instruction of the House m 1881. Thus the opportunity of avoiding what we fear is proving to have been a disastrous mistake, was wilfuHy rejected, and almost the only member who can claim entire exemption for all blame m the matter is the late member for Coleridge, whose only satisfaction is that he did his duty