The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING, FRIDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 1907.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2148, 2 August 1907, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING, FRIDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 1907.

THE GISBORNE HARBOR BILL. If tlio Gisborne Harbor Bill lads to pass during tlio present session tlio blame will rost entirely with its selfsi.ylod champions. Similarly if by any specios of good fortune it sliould receive Parliamentary sanction, the result may fittingly bo said to have been achieved in spito of their efforts, AVo are moved to the foregoing declaration by a perusal of the statement that is being circulated in the Houses of Parliament at present, and which is to bo produced as evidence when tlio Bill is under consideration. The statement contains figures which members of the Board must know to bo erroneous, and such misrepresentation is under the circumstances not only discreditable to the Board but also implies a reflection upon tlio people of Gisborne. To quote one notable instance, to which we have referred on a previous occasion: Under the heading Estimated increased revonuo to be derived from tlio proposed work” appears the following item : “Extra revenue from Tauwhareparae lease when it falls in in four years’ time, say, £."000.” It is true a sub-heading “incidental increase” is also attached to this item, but it is entirely out of place amongst the items of “increasel revenue derived from the proposed work.” Assuming that the Harbor Board’s revenue will be increased by the amount stated it could picperly be mentioned as future revenue which would assist the Board in meeting the additional obligations imposed by the operations of the Bill, but in no other way. The rent from the Tauwharepnrae leases will increase whether the harbor be coil- | strreted or not, and to suggest ns the j Board lias done that this increase will be effected by the Bill reads simply like a stupid effort to hoodwink our legislators in Wellington. There arc other items under the same heading, which, if not evidence of deliberate misrepresentation, at any rate show an appalling disregard for the principles that would guide any business man in the conduct of his private affairs. One of them roads as follows: “Extra increase of revenuo (last year’s was £2179), say at ratio of £2OOO per annum in 4 year’s time, £8000.” Considering that for the tiireo years preceding last year tlio iuc oaso averaged less than £IOOO por year, it is suroly unduly optimistic to assume that during the next four years the receipts’ will make such huge advances. AVo admit the possibility; but it must be apparent that this would certainly not be the estimate of a cautious financier. A T et another item reads: “Annual saving in river expenditure after allowing ovor £2OOO to be still expended upon the river, £5000.” Do the members of the Harbor Board really believe that the construction of a new harbor will result in the practical disuse of our present waterway? If so, they must be singularly ignorant of commercial experience the world over, for it has been demonstrated unmistakably that once a waterway is proved to bo of practical utility it is rarely, if ever, closed up. There can be no rivalry between the Turanganui river and a new harbor as a medium of transport, for the one is simply the complement of the other. The harbor when constructed should increase the trade of Gktorne enormously both for large and small craft, and the latter will, as now, come nP the river. Hence, any argument based upon future neglect of this excellent means of transport fer Bmall vessels is entirely fallacious, and to suggest that the annual expenditure thereon is likely to be reduced from £7OOO to £2OOO is too absurd to require further comment, The amount of £8473 is, according to ‘.he statement, to be saved in lighterage, but nothing is said in this eon- ' nection of the freight charges that will be incurred in transferring goods by rail from the wharf to the town. In any case the lighterage charges are paid by private firms, and tlieir abolition will not increase the Harbor Board’s revenuo by one penny. How, therefore, this item of £8473 comes to be included under the heading “Estimated increased revenue to be derived'from the proposed work” must remain a mystery to all but its originators. It may be argued that such a saving to private individuals might bo transferred to the Board in the shape of increased charges, but this is already accounted for in a separate item which proposes to

double the existing rates to shippers. In such mannor as this the statement attempts to show that the increased annual revenue to the Board as the result of the proposed harbor will tgtal over £40,000, and if Parliament accepts the facts as correct then our legislators are more dulLwifled than we imagined them to be. Sc- far as the success of the Harbor Bill is concerned, there is just a possibility that Parliamentary members night overlook the .discrepancies jin. (Jie statement jusjt refer re/1 to as being merely the foolisji vagaries of a few misguided individuals and considering the harbor project on its •merits as -a legitimate work agree to the passage of the Bill. Unfortunately eyon this possibility affords little ground for hope 911 the part of those who are desirous of seeing the work of construction commenced in the near future, for the members of the Harbor Board have with a- curious perverseness apparently destroyed any chance of the Bill becoming operative, Assuming it passes botli Houses of the Legislature, the next stop is to obtain the sanction of the ratepayers. The possibility of success at this stage is seriously jeopardised by the action of the Board in proposing to compel the residents of Waiapu County and of the Tolaga Bay riding of the Cook County to assist in paying for a harbor which, m constructed, will lie of 1.0 substantial benefit to them. The unanimous vote of those districts will

naturally be cast against the Bill, and very many Gisborne residents who would under other circumstances vote for the loan would oppose it as a protest against the proposed injustice to the settlers mentioned. It, is just possible, however, that the clauses complained of may be depleted before the Bill becomes law, in which case the ratepayers might sanction tlje loan. The 'next tiling is to find the money, and here again it! would appear that the Harbor Board financiers hare entirely failed to grasp the first elements in the situa-t-joi;., In stipulating that only fo-ur per cent interest is to be paid on a pn posed loan of £400,000,' they have leaded ijhe Bill with a provision that will almost certainly render it inoperative. In other words, is onl r tlio remotest possibility of the; money being forthcoming. When Sir

Joseph Ward is unable to raiso a million loan for the furtherance of his public works policy at less than 1 per cent with tiro security of tho colony behind it* is it likely that the G'el orne Harbor Board can obtain its loan at tho same rate? It must be remembered that tho chief secant's of tho loan is tho rateable value of Gisborne town and suburbs, and as ! tho rates are already earmarked ns security for the river loan of £200,000, hho Board is m the position of a man who seeks a second mortjraf.o on a proporty and believes ho can secure tlio same terms as if his security was unencumbered. Wien it is pointed out that certain members I 0 - tho Board liavo boon declaring that tlio monoy can bo raisod in the colony in yearly instalments a-t a fixed rite of 4 par cent, according as the •progress of the work necessitates additional payments, it will be nil or stood bow extraordinarily optimistic semo individuals become when their enthusiasm is directed to a particular object. The proper plan would have been for tho Board to liavo fixed tho interest at, say, 5 per cent, and when the loan was authorised it could then mnk- the best arrangements possible. If tlio money could be obtained at 4 per cent so much tlio better. Under tlio' Bill as at present before the House, unless the loan can be floated at -> per cent the Act becomes inoperative and a year’s delay will be necessary to permit an amended Bill to be piaced before the Parliament of 1908 ; and tho new proposals will then have to he submitted to tho ratepayers, Surely it would have been a reasonable cruise for the Board to have tester •the money market before making its proposals; yet the simplest precautions appear to have been neglectec by the members.

The proposal for a harbor is one which has our entire sympathy, and we liavo the utmost confidence in asserting that the district can boar the financial burden involved by the proposed expenditure. If an efficient harbor can be obtained at £350,000, Mr. Marchant’s estimate, it will bo an excellent investment for a district with the glorious future which we believe is to' be the heritage of Poverty Bay. Holding such views j t j., extremely distasteful to us to find a laudable object discredited by objectionable tactics in misrepresenting the financial position and in seeking to enact a tax where no benefit can result, and by the appalling ignorance of the first principles of finance on the part of those who are to bo ontrustod with the conduct of the scheme. Tliero are, of course, some members of the Board whoso pretest has been raised against the methods referred to, hut unfortunately they have been in tiro minority, p, i> not yet too late to secure amendments to the Bill, and it is just possible that the radical faults referred to above may ho removed before it becomes law, but, failing that, Gisborno residents will find the long-wished-for harbor more remote than ever and the cause must bo looked for in the misdirected efforts of its supporters.