The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1874.

Evening Star, Issue 3507, 20 May 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1874.

The first chapter, as we might term it, of the Harbor Improvement debate brought to light the fact that, notwithstanding all the reports by almost all the engineers who have been in Otago, the real merits of the question have yet been at most but partially comprehended. For example, Mr De Latour, who by-the-by in the non-confidence debate made ample apologies at the beginning of his speech for his “ youth and inexperience,” led off the attack on Mr Stout’s motion, and based his whole opposition to it on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence before the Council. We confess that we are unwilling to expi-ess an opinion

as to his political youth or his inexperience. The members of the Council no xloubt have made up their minds on such an important subject. In one respect the honorable member is certainly not inexperienced. He generally arranges to speak early in a debate, and thereby gets his sayings reported at length, or at all events at far greater length than any other speaker. This is easily explainable. Reporters belong to a class with whom this member is, we believe, unacquainted—“ Recording Angels”— and in a long debate get tired. But to come to the objection urged. It appears that sufficient information has not been given. And really this is the only objection that can be urged, and one -that ->«- (how have the times changed .!)—a City number, Mr Fish, also urges. What does tJijs really mean ? Is Mr Balfour’s Report no information? Was Mr Swyer’s Report no information? And what of the reports furnished to the Sub-Corn-

mifctee on the harbor improvement by Messrs Barr, Blair, JVTGregor, and Thomson ? Ah! the Council cannot look at these. They have not been presented to the Council, That is, one of the members of the Executive has not got up in his place and said, “ I beg to lay the reports of Messrs Barr, Blair, &e., on the table,” nor has the Speaker, being present, affixed his signature to it, nor has the clerk, to make it perfectly formal, bound it with red tape. Until these formalities have been gone through the members of the Council cannot possibly avail themselves of the information furnished by these reports. The next thing we shall expect to hear, if this objection be held good, will be that when, for example, the Provincial Solicitor introduces a quotation from the ‘ Encyclopedia Britannica,’ or when Mr Fish quotes Byron, the members will object because neither the ‘ Encyclopedia ’ nor ‘ Don Juan ’ has been bound round with red tape, and because they bear not the Speaker’s autograph ! What is the nature of the information that the opponents of the harbor improvement desire ? Is it about the state of the bottom ?—Mr Barr has given that. Is it that dredging is can be carried on to the depth named ?—Five engineers say this is possible. Is it an estimate of the cost? —This also has been given. What is there that these opponents of harbor improvement wish to know ? We confess we cannot answer. It is beyond our ken, and we must wait until some member, who is neither “young nor inexperienced” gives us some information on this point. We do trust that the members of the Council will not allow themselves to be deluded by such specious excuses as the opponents of the harbor improvements put forth. The two broad questions, as the mover of the resolution pointed out, really are : are harbor improvement desirable? and .second, can this be best done by a Trust 1 On these questions a vote will have to be taken and those who vote for delay are really opposing the improvement of the harbor altogether, “ Desire for further information ” is the readiest and safest excuse to put forward, if one wishes to shelve any motion. It would be far better, and far more straightforward, if the opponents would boldly declare that there should be no harbor improvement and no Harbor Trust. Were they to do so, the people of the Province could make up their minds as to their conduct. We say the people of the Province—for we regard the improvement of Otago harbor as a proper Provincial work. Everything that tends to cheapen commodities is a benefit to all, and that the transit of goods will be facilitated by the dredging of a deep channel as recommended none can deny. If, therefore, the resolutions are opposed, those who oppose them really refuse to allow the transit of goods to be cheapened. Are those who oppose this motion prepared to place themselves in such a position? We trust not, and we therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, and that for once such an unanimity will be shown as will engble the Superintendent to ask the aid of the General Assembly, with some hope of success.