LYTTELTON HARBOR BOARD.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2167, 4 February 1881, Page 3

LYTTELTON HARBOR BOARD.

An ordinary meeting of the Harbor Board wag held yesterday afternoon in the LyHelton f.ffice. There were present the Hon. Edward Richardson (chairman), Messrs O. W.Turner, R. Allan, H. Sawtell, D. Craig, H. P. Murray-A jnsley, R. J. 8. Harman, H. Allwright, and F. Cunningham. The Chairman made the following statement : -1. The following sums have been paid in to the Board's credit since our last meet* ing :—Wharfage, £1269 13a; towage, warps, and rent, £135 19s 4d; transfer from fixed deposit to current account, £15,000; pilotage and port charges, January, 1881, £435 12a lid; total, £16,841 5s 3d. 2. The towage and dredging returns for the past month (January) are on the table. It will be seen that 145 barge loads have been dredged, amounting to 26,100 cubic yards, or 36,250 tons. The dredge and barges are now undergoing their yearly overhaul, and tenders have been advertised, to be sent in to-day, for slipping them. The dredge, it is found on examination, will not require to be slipped at present, probably not till next year. I have had a complete set of new soundings taken over the whole of the inner harbor as well as the portion of the outer harbor where recently dredged, and the results are very satisfactory. I propose to have a complete set of soundings taken again from the Heads to Quail Island. The last ones taken were in October, 1879. It is very desirable to have this done, so as to determine from time to time whether the dredgiogs which are being deposited in Camp Bay are spreading into the harbor. It will be remembered that the previous soundings taken proved that there was not the slightest evidence of such being the case. Our engineer's monthly report on the progress of the harbor works now on hand will be read. It will not be necessary to remove the boat jetty referred to by him at present. Since our last meeting I have received a letter from Mr Maxwell, dated 19th January, being reply to mine of 20th December, asking the Government to lay in the lines for working new breastwork and shed sites thereon, whioh the Board propone to lease. This letter is of such an extraordinary nature that had I not been out of town for a fow days when it was received, I should have called a special meeting to oonsider it. In my absence, however, the secretary has shown it to most of the members of the Board, and as it requires to be dealt with, I propose having the letter read to the Board presently, as also the answer I think should be sent. The return of shipping entered inwards and outwards during the month of January, 1880, is on the table, the total number of vessels being 115, and their register, tonnage aggregating to 25,267 tons. The insurance committee will bring up their report to-day. A number of accounts will be laid before you for payment to day. None of them, I think, call for any special remark. As the elective members of the present Board go out of office in a few days, and fresh elections will be held on the 14th inst., I think it would be better to postpone the consideration and the publication of the proposed by-laws re wharfage, pilotage, towage and other charges, until after the election of the new Board. The by-laws are still in the hands of our solicitor. The general plans of the new works whioh the present Board have decided upon, namely, the reclamation and breastwork between the Tunnel Jetty to 120 ft. westward of Peacock's Wharf, are on record ; also, the plan for a slip to receive vessels of up to 150 ft. in length. Tenders were called for splicing, &o, twenty-two of the new coir springs, and they will be laid before you this day. A small plot of the Peacock Wharf land has been let, temporary tenancy, to [Messrs McOlatohie and Mcintosh, at £1 a week, and subject to a week's notice on either side.

The engineer's reports for the month's progress of the works in hand was read. The inturance committee reported having communicated with Mr J. D. Macpherson, from whom the following concessions were obtained. Insurance on the Gladstone sheds reduced from 25s to 20s ; on the tug, £5 per £IOO, lets five per cent, discount. The committee recommended that the rates quoted for the sheds be aocepted for £6OOO, but, in respect to the tug, they were of the opinion that the Board should insure her for only £SOOO, half the original amount, as the risk was so inconsiderable; moreover, the annual charge of £SOO for premium on the tug leaves a large deficiency under the head of working expenses, whioh could only be overcome by increasing the towage-charges, a most undesirable step in the committee's opinion. It was resolved to insure the tug for £7500, the total value of the vessel being fixed at £IO,OOO. Aooounts amounting to £7039 3j 7d were passed for payment. Two tenders for slipping the two barges were opened. Malcolm Miller's for £lO2, John Grubb and Co.'s for £96. Messrs Grubb's tender was accepted. The tender sent in by J. Cook, for splicing coir springs for £l9 15s, was aocepted. The following letter was read from the General Manager for Railways:— General Manager's Office, Duuedin, January 19th, 1831.

The Chairman Lyttelton Harbor Board.— Sir,—l have the honor, by direction of the Hon. Minister for Public Works, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, addressed to the Marino Department, in which you request the approval of the Government for executing certain works on the wharfage extension between tho Sorew Pile Jetty and the Gladstone Pier.

The request involves several considerations which it ia desirable to draw attention to. 1. The Government is asked to assent to an arrangement whtrjby the whole of the export wharf fige accommodation as arranged by your Board is commanded by the private individuals into whose hands the lenses of the proposed sheds may fall. 2. In addition to the outlay of .£1179 on the Government reclamation made upon yonr request by the Government for the proper completion of the Board's wharf, a further outlay of .£IOOO will be necessary to make alterations in the station yard, and to lay the additional sidings necessary for the proper working of the new wharves and contiguous ehe.is. 3 The adoption of the site for sheds fixed by the Board, the general position of whiqh is, undoubtedly, most convenient for the railway and port, necessitates the Government devoting the land just reclaimed, adjacent to the proposed shed sites, to sidings for working these sheds. The sheds proposoo could not, in fact, be worked unless the Government devotes its land for the purpose. As regards your application, so far as the design of sheds and sidings alone is concerned, it appears that the siding accommodation has been somewhat too closely curtailed, and, having in view the fact that the sheds proposed by the Board will deal with only a part of the traffic which has to be worked, it is considered that a much larger proportion of siding accommodation is necessary ; the views of the Department in this respect are indicated'on the plan enclosed. With regard to the other considerations involved, of course it is the mutual interest of the Government and the Board that the station arrangements should be such as to insure the rapid loading of Bhips and economical working of the station. These objects will not bebest served by placing the proposed sheds in private hands, and the Government cannot, therefore, but dissent from any proposal to deal thus with them, and after the Government has stated the grounds of its objections, it is believed that the Board will not press its proposals in this respect. The large outlay already incurred by the Government, and the further expense involved in connection with these wharves and shed sites, and the fact that the Bailway Department has to work the traffic, would materially entitle the Government to a voice in settling the course to be fol'owed iu this matter. The Lyttelton Harbor Board's Act, in clauses 9 and 10, is parHcularly clear in defining the powers of the Governor in respect of laying lines and performing other needful work, as well as in entering upon and using the property of the Board for railway purposes, the Board's and the Bailway Department's functions being regarded as mutually exercised in common for the public convenience. The Government is tuKy prepared to perform the duties imposed on it by the Act, and will lay ail the necessary roads and work the" traffic in connecti n with any sheds, the building of which may be approved, but before proceeding to take any action the engineer will be glad to have a further expression of opinion from your Board on the subject. I may add that with regard to the shed accommodation it is considered more convenient to have one continuous building than to have three detached structures, the chief advantage being greater convenience in working, added to which the cost of construction is diminished.—l have, 4c, J. P. Maxwell, General Manager N.Z.B. The Chairman expressed his astonishment at the contents of the letter, exhibiting aa he

desoribed either extraordinary ignorance on the part ef the general manager or the letter had been dictated by the Minister. He would suggest that in future it would bo better that communications from the Board to the Government be addressed to tho Minister direct. That Mr Maxwell had written in ignorance of the Board's position in reference to its scheme of harbor improvements, he oould hardly believe, for at the time when the Board was applying for its powers under the Lyttelton Harbor Land Aot of 1877, Mr Maxwell was then in the department, with the late ohief engineer, Mr Oarruthers, by whom the plan used by the Board was drafted. That plan had been slightly modified since, and approved by the Government. A lithographic copy of the plan was shown in the Board room, exhibiting the identical arrangements made by Mr Oarruthers, whereby the Board was to utilise the sidings to the sheds in the same manner as the Board now 'proposed doing. The Chairman spoke strongly of the attempt on the part of the general manager of railways to interfere in the manner indicated in theletter. He then read to the Board a letter addressed to the Minister, which had been drafted to send in reply, of whioh the following is a oopy:— Lyttelton Harbor Board Office, Christchurch. The Hon. Minister for Public Works. Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr Maxwell's letter of the 19th January, in reply to mine to the Government of the 20th December, 1880, asking whether they approved of the Board's proposed arrangement of the lines to connect the railway with the new wharves and store sites between the screw pile jetty and the Gladstone pier, and by direction of the Board I now reply. In dea'ing with this matter it appears that you have taken up this subject as if it had only now been raised for the first time, and as if the Board were now asking the assent of the Government to some new proposal, whereas the Board are only carrying out step by step the f ugge-tions made by the late ewrineor-in-chief, Mr Oarruthers, after long and eerious consideration, for the best possible arrangements for working the traffic of the port in conjunction with the railway, whioh suggestions were approved by the Minister for Public Works in 1877, and in the main adopted by the Harbor Board. Mr Oarruthers recommended land to be reclaimed by the Harbor Board sufficient for two rows of sheds, as shown in his lithographed plan recorded in Public Works Office, No. 5990, 1877 ; and on the Harbor Board applying to Parliament for the necessary powers in 1877, the Government, at Mr Oarruthers' recommendation, specially reserved sufficient space to enable them to lay down the necessary siding accommodation to work the two lines of stores as proposed by him. If yon will refer to the plan above named, you will spb that the Board have adhered to this plan, excepting so far that they have, with the approval of the Government (by order in Council in February, 1879), only reclaimed the land necessary for the first row of stores, the Board considering that the deep water space is really of more value in Lyttelton than land. The above being a general outline of the facts connected with this portion of the Board's operations, I cannot conceive that you or Mr Maxwell oould possibly have been aware of the state of the case, and if you had been you never would have written such a letter as that now under reply, and I hope that you will see your way to withdraw it at once and endeavour to meet the views of the Board iu the same spirit as they have those of the Government on all occasions since the formation of the Board, namely, to take that course which was mutually considered best for the interests of the public and the Government. Presuming_ that you will largely modify your views in this matter, I will only point out one or two serious errors in your letter. In paragraph 1 in your letter you state that " the Government are asked to assent to an arrangement whereby the whole export wharfage accommodation is commanded by private individuals. "You must have forgotten the existence of all the other wharves bnilt by the Board, and you could hardly have thought that the Board would ever consent to any conditions of lease of these store sites that would enable the lessees to command the wharfage. In regard to paragraph 2, in which it is stated, " in addition to the outlay of £4179 on the Government reclamation, made by the Government upon the Board's request f<.r the proper comn'eUon of the Board's wharf, a further sum ot £ 1000 for roil alteration in the station and yard, and to lay the additional sidings necessary fur working the new wharves and contiguous sheds," I desire'to point out that yon are under a misimnression in supposing that the reclamation was \ aid for by the Government "at the Board's request for the proper completion of the Bjard's wharf." A reference to the Board's Utter of the 24th October, 1878, will clearly set forth the various reasons why it was necessary this reclamation should be done, looking to the rapidly increasing demand for additional accommodation in Ljttelton, and pointing out that it was absolutely imperative that it should be provided for in time, it being a portion of the general plan for the Lyttelton railway station, as arranged by the late engineer-in chief, Mr Carruthers. I may add that the cost of this reclamation.exernted by theßoard for the Government, was Is 9d per cubic yard, less than half the price paid by the Government for similar work previoutly done by them in Lyttelton. In conclusion, lam directed to state that the Board are quite alive to the fact that it is " the mutual interest of the Government and the Board that the station arrangements should be such as to ensure the rapid loading of ships and the economical working of the station," but the mere expression of the Government's opinion that these objects will not be beßt served by "placing the proposed sheds in private hand?," unsupported by any reasons or evidence whatever, or any alternative proposal for building or working the sheds, does not alter the Board's previously expressed opinion on the matter. The grounds of objection are not specifically stated by the Government, nor are the benefits of any alternative plan set forth, and yet the Board are asked to reverse their decision. On the other hand, I may be allowed to point out that if the Government desire to press their objections, the means of doing so are clearly set forth in sections 143 and 144 of the Harbors Act, 1878, which is a subsequent legislative measure to paction 10 of the L ttelton Harbor Land Act. 1877 (quoted by Mr Maxwell), which provides that the Board shall receive compensation for land taken or n«ed by the Government. In the present ca-e the Board have spent, or are spending some £25,000 in carrying out this reclamation and breastwork, which are portions of the general plan bb previously approved by the Government. If, therefore, the present Government see reasons for departing from the previously agreed to plan of harbor improvements in I.vtteltoH, it is but fair and right that they should exercise the power given them by the sections of the Harbor Act, 1878, previously quoted. On the other hard, it would be manifestly wrong to expect the Beard to sacrifice a legitimate and previously counted upon source of revenue, when they hold the opinion that the leasing of these shed sites will conduce to the general convenience of the public, and with proper regulations should in no wise interfere with the railway traffic arrangements. I have, &o , Edward Bichaedson, Chairman Lyttelton Harbor Board. P.S.—I am directed further to state that any delay in coming to a decision in this matter will ser'ously interfere with one of the principal efforts of the B >ard for tho past three years, namely, to provide additional storage accommodation in Lyttelton for the produ e of the country. I have therefore to beg your earliest attention to this matter. (Signed) E. Richardson.

Mr O. W. Tamer fully concurred in the views expressed by the chairman. He thought that political bias and improper feeling had been imported into the letter, and while he approved of the reply proposed to be sent, he did not think it was a sufficiently strong one in answer to the letter of the manager of railways. The Board was entitled to be more respectfully addressed, and it was due to their chairman, as well ai to every member of the Board, that such trifling with the working plans of the Board as the letter from the railway manager »ai equivalent to should be unqualifiedly condemned. The Board had worked for years for the good of the port and the convenience of the public, in carrying out a definite scheme of improvements in the port ; one under the immediate at sent ml special approval of the G.vernment, and it had remained for a new comer to step in and endeavor to undo the whole of it. He suggested that the reply should point out the absurdity of the supposition that the Board would consent to the lessees of the store sites getting such conditions of lease as would enable them to command the wharfage. The addition suggested was agreed to and made in the letter.

Mr Harman ooncurred with Mr Turner, and he felt sure the public would approve of the action of the Board in its efforts to resist tu-sh an interference. He thought that neither Mr Msxwell, nor the Minister, nor the Governor in Council, had the right to say to the Board, " You shall not erect these sheds." The letter proposed to be sent in reply as emanating from the B3ard he did not consider a whit too strongly worded. Mr H. P. Murray-Aynsley suggested that the letter should point out how any delay occurring in going on with the Board's plans would seriously inoonvenienoe the publio in respect to shed accommodation during the ensuing season.

This was agreed to, and the Board ad. jourued to meet in Lyttelton on the 17th lost,