Untitled

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 383, 6 April 1880, Page 2

The question of the advisableness of taking over the Akaroa wharves or jetties by the Municipality has again been brought under the notice of the City Fathers, arid although the decision given was once more adverse to the proposal, yet the action decided upon will no doubt precipitate matters, and, if followed up, bring the affair to a, decisive issue before very long.

It seems to us that the strong opposition which the proposition to take over these wharves has encountered is, to a great extent, formed on -.misconception on one or two points connected therewith. It is our purpose in the following lines to endeavor to put the case before our readers as it really stands.

The old adage as to the impropriety of looking a gift horse in the mouth contains a truth which, we think, throws the onus of proof on the objectors to the acceptance of the horse in question. The objections to the acceptance of the wharves appear tv range themselves under the following heads :—

1. The present Government wharf is rotten.

2. The Government have received all the income derivable from it for the last four years, and they ought therefore to put it in thorough repair before handing it over.

3. The Borough at present is free from responsibility, but if they took it over they would be liable for damages if any accident happened in consequence of its bad state of repair. Let us glance at these three grounds of objection.

1. With regard to this point, it is impossible for non-professional men to give a decided opinion, but we are certainly disposed to think that, though certain repairs are necessary, the state of disrepair in which the wharf is stated to be has been grossly exaggerated. It is impossible that it can be otherwise, unless the whole work was most shamefully scamped at first, considering the comparatively short space of time which has elapsed since a considerable portion of it was erected.

2. We are perfectly willing , to admit that the money collected on the whuri

should be devoted to its repair, but we have to look at matters as they are, not as they ought to be, and we feel very clear on the point that, this money having once disappeared into that maelstrom called the Consolidated Revenue;- it will be very difficult, if not utterly impossible to rescue it. Our readers must remember that it is not in the power of any Government, however willing, to spend this money on the .wharf. This can only be done by a vote of the Assembly, and those who are familiar with the temper of that body, will be well aware in what a jealous and suspicious spirit any proposal to spend public money upon local works is likely to be received.

8. With regard to this, objection, we have no hesitation whatever, in classing it as chimerical. A decision given lately by the Supreme Court clearly lays down the principle that, public bodies are under an obligation to maintain public works under their control, jet that obligation is strictly limited by the means at their disposal. The case we refer to was an action brought against the Heathcote Road Board, on account of the unsafe state of a bridge under their control. The Council in taking over the wharf would thereby bind theniseWes to spend the revenue derived from it in repairs, but beyond this their liabilities would not extend.

Of course it is easier for members of a public body, such a& our Borough Council, to decline all responsibility in a matter which may become a troublesome one—to fold their hands and be willing to see' the trade of the Port ruined, rather than put their shoulders to the wheel in time. But such a course is neither consistent nor dignified. It is not consistent, because they have voluntarily sought a position which involves responsibility and pre-supposes an interest in the welfare of the place they help to govern. It is not dignified, because it is a confession of either incapacity to manage public affairs, or an indolent determination to ignore their responsibility.

We have purposely omitted to notice another class of objectors. Those who would be willing that public properties should steadily deteriorate so as, in a few years, to become useless, because, during that period, they could save a few wretched twopences by having the use of a free wharf must be possessed by an amount of selfishness, which is impervious to argument and only worthy of contempt.