Manawatu Herald. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1889. YES OR NO.

Manawatu Herald, Volume VII, Issue 242, 15 February 1889, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1889. YES OR NO.

On the 30th May, 1888, the member for Foxton asked the Minister for Public Works " If he would cause an inspection to be made of the mouth of the Manawatu Eiver, and a report to be made as to whether, at a reasonable cost, the river could not be made to resume its old course, the present one being extremely dangerous ? He had asked a somewhat similar question last session, and since then he had taken an opportunity of seeing for himself the position of matters, and he believed that for a small expense it -was possible to make a very great improvement ; but he would, like some specialist to inspect the place and make suggestions. Mr G. F. Bichardson said " there was no objection to an inspection being made of the mouth of the river, as the cost would be small ; but he was given to understand that any works to make an improvement would mean a heavy expense, which the circumstances of the ease would not warrant." Mr Wilw n " wished to know if the Minister meant to say " Yes " or " No " to the question as to inspection." Mr Bichardson replied "Yes." Now it is not strange if we reiterate the question Mr Wilson put nine months ago, " does the Minister mean " Yes " to the question of inspection ? " If the Government had any real desire to oblige Mr Wilson and his constituents it surely would have been possible long before now to have had a report iurnished b some reliable authority ; but the very tardy action they did take, and that was not for months after the question was put, wag one which might as well been left undone The appointment of Mr J T. Stewart to furnish a report on harbor improvements was not in any way in accord with the desire expressed by Mr Wilson, as, whatever qualities are possessed by Mr J. T. Stewart as a surveyor and

road engineer, he certainly has never, during the past twenty years, practised on any harbour works, therefore the application for a " specialist " has been most offhandedly set aside. We may as well recapitulate the rest of the story of delay. Mr Stewart appeared in Foxfcon sometime last November, and twice drove down to the bar of the river, having given this modicum of attention to the fact, he has been spending (presumably) the time from then to now, a period of two months and a half, in preparing his report. No one would desire to hurry any man who was passing his time, watching on the spot any deviations in the course of th stream or the action of tho tides, but if two days were all that were necessary for purposes of observation, the time spent in preparing a report seems out of all proportion. As, however, we agreewith Wilson that a report of a specialist is desirable, and would be the only one that would carry any weight with the House, we look upon this action of the Minister of Public Works as another way of saying "No" by saying "Yes." We can only recommend Mr Wilson to ask " a somewhat similar question" next, session to the one he did last (and the session even before that), and so on till another election enables the electors to return a member upon whom the Minister of Public Works would think twice before he says " Yes " but intends " No."