The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, October 3, 1908. THE FOXTON HARBOUR BOARD BILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 438, 3 October 1908, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, October 3, 1908. THE FOXTON HARBOUR BOARD BILL.

The above Bill will be finally dealt with by Parliament next week, or postponed. The various clauses of the Bill and the endowments are well known to our readers. The Bill has been reported to the House by the Bocal Bills Committee with the clause dealing with wharfages deleted. With this clause struck out, the Board is deprived of its principal source of revenue. Cabinet has, however, consented to make a grant o f per year to the Board as a compromise, and it now remains for the promoters of the Bill to accept this compromise with the hope of ultimately reaching its objective, or of dropping the Bill and commencing the agitation de novo. Mr Hennessy, wants the port’s birthright, i.e., wharfages, or nothing, and there is much to admire in his persistency for sticking to this principle. We admit that he is backed by justice. But there is more ways than one of killing a cat, and after mature consideration we are of opinion that it would be better to cry a* halt half way up the hill, than to release the brakes

and run to the bottom again. Our opinion in this respect is shared by a majorityof those interested in the measure, and for these reasons; the Board, if constituted would be a concrete, responsible and representative body, and could fight for the port from a better vantage ground and under more favourable conditions; it could enlist the co-operation of other Boards who are being similarly treated in respect to whartages; the river and port would be under responsible control and although no great improvements could be carried out yet there would be sufficient revenue to meet current expenses; the cutting up and leasing of sections at the heads could be attended to for revenue producing purposes; and much useful work commenced in preparing the way for the future superstructure. The objection that if the Board accepted the Government’s compromise, it would prejudice its claim to further concessions, is purely speculative and entirely without precedent. The Board can batter away session after session until justice has been fully meted out. Finally, we suggest that Mr Stevens be now given a free hand to get the best concession he can, and have the Board constituted, for delays are dangerous. MR STEVENS’ TINE OF ACTION. From a communication we have received from Mr John Stevens, M.P., it is problematical, supposing the compromise is accepted, whether the Bill will get through this session, which will be a source of great disappointment to the majority of those concerned in the movement. Mr Stevens says : “ Respecting the Harbour Board Bill which will be reported from the Eands Committee on Monday, when I will move that the second reading be set down for the first sitting day. Owing to the few days of the session left, it is difficult to say whether the second reading can come on, but i;':' it does, I purpose explaining the whole position, and asking the Government if they will endow the Harbour Board with sufficient funds to be of practical use in improving and maintaining the harbour. As to allowing the present intolerable state of affairs to exist, it is not only unreasonable but unjust to the whole of the people between the Turakina river on the north, and the Ohau river on the south. I shall use every effort to keep the Bill alive by getting a promise, if possible, from the Government to fully consider the position during the recess and meet the wishes of the Foxton Chamber of Commerce with a fair proposal of practical utility. This, I think, possible, but I have no intention of dropping the measure but will postpone it with every confidence that the ultimate result may be reasonably satisfactory to Foxton and the surrounding district. The Government,” continues Mr Stevens, “are faced with great difficulties, 1 and intricate questions of this kind can only be brought to a successful issue by calm deliberation and judicious procedure. Any precipitate action would be decidedly a retrogressive step, which I think would be regrettable.”

From the above it will be clearly seen that Mr Stevens is not in favour of any precipitate action su"h as dropping the Bill because we cannot get everything we desire at the first pop, and we feel sure that his line of conduct will be fully indorsed by every one concerned.