THE HARBOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1784, 15 June 1906, Page 3

THE HARBOR.

(To the Editor Gisborne Time*.. Sir, —Your leader of Monday states ;hat the members of the Harbor Board

receive so much advice that they may solve something from the “ chaos of opinion.” If your leader had stated that the chaotic actions of the mem-

bers of the Board are detrimental to the interest and welfare of the rate-

payers it would be nearer the truth. Another assertion, “ many damaging

statements.” They are damaging statements and damaging results. “ Irresponsible writers who condemn work done on the advice of engineers

gratuitously offer schemes of their own.” This assertion is cruel in the extreme, as the writer of the leader must know, or should know, by this time, that Sir John Ooode’s scheme was but the true one, and would not fail to give satisfaction. Unfortunately this was put aside by the members who are evidently the chaos pure and simple. Had we experienced, practical men to administer our harbor affairs in the first instance, and had they carried out the Coode scheme, a harbor would now be in existence remunerative, a necessity and convenience not only to the merchant but to those who use the sea as a highway. J In respect of scoffers,” which, is “ harsh,” no financial experts or writers have led the ratepayers to believe that rates would not be increased. They must increase until the object suitable is establisheda substantial and payable harbor as scoffers submit, so as our carriage of merchandise can be reduced and accommodation given to vessels of the Tyser line, Hhaw Savill, etc., to enter a respectable and safe harbor, thereby saving lighterage. It is palpable to a school-boy that fencing the beach will not make a harbor, and upon this idea a fresh start should be made by what means are left.

How many in our midst would be only too thankful to walk on board the Union Company’s steamers in a

civilised and modern manner than in the period in which your leader depicts, the transit of passengers in the fcsnark, or the wading of cattle across the river (our present harbor) ? Within the river was safety, but now outside uncertain.

It is common knowledge that Timaru has a harbor which is a credit, monument, and remains an asset which now and ever will be remunerative ; if this can be done in a place open to the sea, why not construct a breakwater in our district, protected as it is by the land in every direction but one, and become a rival to Timaru’s engineering success and boldness. This is no barracking or rubbish, nor condemning the work of “ timid people,” but of the timid or useless members who represent the ratepayers or contributors upon the Harbor Board. “ Ked Buoy ” and Mr Lewis appear to be more sensible and practical, in their advopapy and discretion than the erroneous grasp of the writer of your leader. Comment of fifteen years ago —I say thirty years ago the Pretty Jane, Go Ahead, Jane Douglas and others could enter the river up to Head’s Quay. “ No'rubbish, but truth.” What improvement ha 3 been made since then ?—nothing bvit a waste of money. The ratepayers are the sufferers, and until we get superior and experienced representative members to control our contributions as ratepayers our pockets will be

empty, and the district at largo will suffer

I conclude by stating tbat tho present Gisborne Harbor Board mombors should adopt as their motto, “ Wo aro very busy and yet doing nothing.”I am, otc., Bahn.ut.e,