PROPOSED HARBOUR BOARD.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 399, 18 June 1908, Page 3

PROPOSED HARBOUR BOARD.

The Premier’s Statement.

Mr Hennessy in Reply

Our representative wailed on Mr Hennessy, President of the local Chamber of Commerce, with a view of obtaining his opinion as to the Premier’s reply to the deputation, which waited upon him, at Palmerston, on Monday, in reference to the proposed Harbour Board.

Our reporter first quoted Sir Joseph’s words : 14 was quite true that the Railway Department had taken the revenue, but it must also he remembered that it bad provided the capital to enable that revenue to be obtained, and that it bad kept up the maintenance of the necessary wharf, until the district decided to form a .Harbour Board.

Mr Hennessy’s reply was that the Public Works Department provided the money for the erection of the wharf, and that the Railway Department has since been repaid—well—I should not like to say—but, at least ten fold. The Public Works Department also took the foreshore, the property of the district, for railway extension purposes, and to suit their own convenience.

What about the endowments referred to by the Premier ? Mr Hennessy : The pilot reserve and foreshore was the property of the defunct harbour board, and at present the endowments mentioned by the Premier are of very little value from a financing point of view. As to their future value, I can’t say. Mr Hennessy added that Patea had an endowment bringing in /400 odd per year and Wanganui got an endowment of 40,000 acres in the Manawatu County, which they disposed of, and expended the proceeds on river improvements. This will give you an idea of how Foxton has been treated ! The Premier mentioned that Wanganui and Patea accepted their responsibilities and carried out the duties that the Railway Department had had to do, to a great extent at Foxton. Mr Hennessy: The Railway Department has been very well paid for what it has already done, and that argument does not carry any weight for the reason that the local harbour board in the late 70’s or early Bo’s failed to carry out their duties or functions as a harbour board. The Railway Department since has had the opportunity to fulfil those functions and have distinctly failed excepting that they have year by year swelled the railway revenue at the expense of the river. Mr Hennessy asked what would become of the railways it all revenue was diverted to other departments of State and nothing spent on railway maintenance ? Our reporter did .not vouchsafe a reply but admitted the analogy. Sir Joseph said that it appeared to him that if they desired to make a thoroughly efficient harbour and deal with the silting that was going on, they should have estimates prepared.

Mr Hennessy : We are not aiming at making the port of Foxton a Liverpool or Clyde but we only want to make the river more accessible to shipping : that can be done out of revenues accruing from the shipping and. why should the district rate itself when the money is now being earned by the river, but unfortunately going elsewhere. Mr Hennessy said he was at one with Mr Burnett as regards rating. The question of rating, mentioned by Sir Joseph Ward, was quite beside the point, and it is manifestly unfair for. the Government to bolster up this bogey. Patea is successfully running its harbour (and there is no comparison between the two rivers) without a rate. Mr Hennessy agreed with Sir Joseph Ward that the cardinal point was the handing over of the dues collected and held by the Railway Department. Sir Joseph Ward said there were similar cases of wharves under the Railway Department in the colony, and if the Government were asked to hand over the wharves, it would have to refuse in three cases out of five.

Mr Hennessy: From all the inquiries I have made, I have not been able to find one where the same conditions obtain as at Foxton.

Sir Joseph Ward stated that he did not think that a properly equipped Harbour Board could be obtained by escaping some of the responsibilities attaching to it. New Plymouth, Waitara, Gis-

borne, Otago. Canterbury, and Southland districts had taken very heavy obligations upon themselves in connection with their Harbour Boards.

Mr Hennessy : Unlike the ports mentioned above, excepting' Waitara, nature has provided Foxton with a good fiver. We do not anticipate expending thousands of pounds in erecting breakwaters. Waitara has a river somewhat similar to Foxton, with no rating area, but has to contribute towards the upkeep of the New Plymouth breakwater. Further, the ports mentioned by the Premier collect ail dues, whereas the Railway Department collects it here, and spends nothing on the river. Sir Joseph said the Ministers for Railways and Marine had to be careful to guard againt placing themselves in a position to enable other places to come forward with requests, saying, “ Look what yon have done for Foxton” —as in fact, the deputation had pointed to Patea and Wanganui. Mr Hennessy : I can only say, with Mr Stevens, M.P., that if an injustice has been done to other ports that is no reason why it should be perpetuated for all time. is your opinion as to the ultimate result of the deputation ? Mr Hennessy: I think that when the Government fully consider the whole situation they will see the justice of conceding the dues asked for.

What are you going to do with the Bill ?

Mr Hennessy : As far as I am concerned we are going to proceed with it.

Commenting on the deputation which wailed on the Premier at Palmerston on Monday, our Palmerston evening contemporary says;— 11 The Premier was very guarded in his reply to the representative deputation which asked for assistance in improving the port of Foxton. He was bound, of course, by the previous definite pronouncements of his colleagues on the points at issue, and while he promised to see that the fullest consideration was given to all sides of the question, he made it plain that there was little hope ot securing the Railway Department’s wharfages. The Premier also urged the initial step in the movement should be a rating scheme, and then the people interested —and they are legion—would be in a position to come to the Government and ask for assistance. Such a suggestion, if its realisation is essential to the lending of a helping band, means, we fear, the death-blow to the hope of a Foxton Harbour Board. The local bodies will certainly not agee to such a proposition. But we question rating is a sine qua non in the matter. Mr Hennessy has put forward a scheme which is thoroughly sound. This, however, includes the handing over of wharfage dues by the Railway Department, but as the Government are opposed to the suggestion, the promoters of the Board are faced with a serious obstacle. If the Government can be induced to take a reasonable view of the matter, and will permit the Board to receive the revenue to which it has a legitimate claim, the scheme can be carried into effect without the slightest difficulty, financial or otherwise. However, Sir Joseph Ward has promised that all aspects of the matter will be weighed in the manner they deserve, and further criticism must be postponed while the problem is sub judice. One thing must be made clear : The river mouth must receive attention, and i£ the interested parties are not allowed to do the work, the Railway Department should be compelled to take up its f responsibilities with the same avidity that it seizes the revenue.