THE HARBOUR SCHEME.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4555, 24 April 1923, Page 1

THE HARBOUR SCHEME.

ADDRESSES BY OPPONENTS. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. After the addresses given at the Board delegation (published in lasj ■Friday's issue) several questions were put to the speakers, Mr de Castro handed the chairman a newspaper clipping containing their figures, and asked were they or the figures given by the Harbour Board delegation correct. The three speakers replied, and stated that the figures they had quoted had been taken from the Harbour Board’s handbook, the report, of the Commission, the engineer’s report, the official Year Book, and. the Government Abstract of Statistics. In reply to a question by Mr de Castro as to whether the Harbour Board could pay interest and sinking fund on £40,000, Mr Price said that in 1917 its receipts were £2031 and payments £2447, so had lost £416. Th 3 outstanding liability was not shown, but the assets were £714. In 1918 the profit was £326, outstanding liabilities £316, so the actual profit was £lO. In 1919, profit £3Bl, liabilities £562. In 1920, profit £264; outstanding liabilities £713. The Board had £2lOO cash assets over this period of years, and its liabilities were not known, but out of this had been built the Turua wharf, costing £3500. Tn reply to Mr Buchanan, Mr Price said -that the cost of dredging the channel to the wharf was; In 1918, £l9 ; in 1919, £1502 ; in 1920, £5OO ; in 1921, £1153. Mr Coulter added that it would be impossible tc tell what the cost would be this year. Mr S. J. Laughlin said that the Is passenger tax had been imposed to dredge at the end of the wharf, and it had been announced that this would cease when the work was paid for. However, it had been extended to the Shortland, Kopu, and Turua wharves. The finances of the Board were not accounted for by greater shipping,, except. the electric poles, but by greater taxation. In regard to his statement that wharfage on poles was roughly a ton, Mr Price explained that 1034 poles would weigh, roughly 500 tons. The wharfage paid was £lB, so the cost was about B)£d a ton,. The Harbour Board said that the wharfage would be 2s 6d a ton when the harbour was established. Mr Coulter, in replying to Mr de Castro, said that the question of the best site for a harbour was a matter for an engineer, but owi'ng -to the large amount of guesswork more than one opinion should be obtained. Mr Flatt asked if any bores had been put down in the gulf to ascertain the formation. Mr Price said he intended going through the .Board’s books to see. In his opinion it should be done, as he was certain that at one time the Waikato River had come this way, and that oeneath the mud there was, sand, which would slip in if deep dredging was attempted. Mr Laughlin said that there was more water in the river than was proposed at Thames. Had the poles been landed a bit higher up the. river no wharfage at all need have been paid. Mr Buchanan asked the speakers if. in their opinion, the Government would be prejudiced when bringing down the Bill on the river in the matter of giving representation on the proposed river board if the loan was carried. Mr Coulter said that was the basis of one of the arguments against the scheme. The matter would be dealt with in the coming session. It was impossible to have dual control. The Harbour Board should control the harbour and a river board the river. Mr Donaldson had said that if the Board did not deal with the proposals the proposals would deal with the Board. Tn reply to Mr T. Vowl.es, Mr Price said that the harbour scheme was supposed to have come from the Thames Chamber of Commerce. He was led to believe that the chamber had asked the Harbour Board to prepare a scheme, and the chamber was prepared to pay the cost of an engineer’s estimate. Mr D. G. McMillan pointed out that the Board had an advertisement in the “Herald’’ stating that, the Hanraki Plains had not the shipping to send their produce to Auckland, and that the £60,000’ would provide berthage similar to that at Castlecliff. He thought the matter should be taken up. The chairman said that it would be attended to. . Mr E. Edwards moved that a vote of thanks be accorded the delegation for placing the facts against the proposal before the meeting. This was seconded by Mr Flatt, and was carried by acclamation, and the meeting