HARBOUR BOARD AFFAIRS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 835, 5 May 1910, Page 3

HARBOUR BOARD AFFAIRS.

FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH GOVERNMENT SUGGESTED.

At Monday night’s meeting of the Foxton Harbour Board, letters were received from Mr E. Newman M.P., and the Acting Minister for Railways, in connection with the purchase of the wharf by the Board from the Government.

The letter, in reply, from the Hon. J. Carroll (during the Hon. Mr Millar’s visit to Australia) stated that, “after looking into the matter I am of opinion that it will be in the interests of the Department to retain the present wharf and I regret, therefore, that I cannot see my way to quote a price at which it could be handed over to the Board.’’

Mr Newman wrote on receipt of the above: “In view of the decision contained in the above letter, I shall be glad to know what course your Board now propose to follow.”

Mr Nash said the Board should arrange to send a deputation to Wellington to meet the Minister and again discuss the situation.

The Chairman said as the letters received by the Board from the Hon. Mr Millar in respect to the purchase of the wharf by the Board seemed somewhat vague, Mr Feild arranged an interview for him with Mr Millar before the latter went to Australia in order to further discuss the matter. The resolution of the Board passed in November, which is as follows was referred to : “That this Board acting on the suggestion of the Hon. Mr Millar when in Foxton, do now ask the Minister if he will favourably consider the purchase by the Board of the wharf now in use. (2) If the Minister agrees to this proposal will he state in what way the price is to be arrived at, whether by arbitration or valuation, and also what terms he would agree for payment of same.” As a result of the interview with the Minister, the Chairman said he had given notice of motion to delete all that portion of the resolution after the words “now in use.” The Minister gave him to understand that before ne gotiations were entered into the question of finance would have to be eliminated. The Minister looked upon the wharf as a very valuable asset to the Railway Department, and the Government would expect to be paid in cash. Mr Nash said he did not attach any importance to the letter received from the Acting Minister for Railways. It must be recognised thatthe Board could not make any progress in improving the port until the wharf was secured. A deputation consisting of the whole Board should wait upon the Minister and give the latter ample time to consider the details submitted before giving a definite reply. He referred to the Minister’s sympathetic attitude to the Board when he visited Foxton, and he led the Board to believe that the Government would sell the wharf. He did not think the Board would find any difficulty in financing the purchase oi the wharf. He moved that a special meeting of the Board be held to discuss the question together with the chairman’s notice of motion and that Mr Newman be asked to arrange the interview with the Minister.

Mr Tolley seconded the motion. In doing so be took occasion to explain the reason of his absence from previous meetings. He did not think he was justified in losing valuable time to attend meetings when the business was not of sufficient importance to warrant his attendance. Feilding business people looked upon the port as of great importance. If the Board had full control of the port, shipping would increase by leaps and bounds. The Railway Department in witholding the wharfages from the Board was blind to its own interests,foriif money was not expended on improvements the river would silt up, shipping would be driven elsewhere and the revenue would cease. The Minister was trying to make the railways pay and this was one of the methods adopted. It was absurd to expect the railways to pay at present with a population of about a million and it was wrong for the Department to achieve its end by grabbing wharfages. “Wharfages are not a proper income for railways,” added Mr Tolley. He held the opinion that the railways would ultimately pay, but at present they should be utilised for settling people on the land. It was wrong for the department to hamper the port by absorbing its principal means of revenue.

Mr Stiles said the Board did not expert the Minister to hand over the wharf for nothing. When Mr Millar visited Foxtou he gave the Board to understand that if a proposition was put before the Government for its purchase that Cabinet would favourably consider it. At present there was a deadlock and it was time a move was made. The letters received from Messrs Levin and Co., and the Harbourmaster’s report would strengthen the hands of the Board in placing the position belore the Minister. Delay meant increased cost to put the port in order. He supported the resolution that the Board should go down and interview the Minister.

The Chairman said he would have liked the Board to have thrown the responsibility of making arrangements for the purchase of the wharf on bis shoulders. He referred to the interview he had had with the Minister and had been promised a further interview. The Minister had referred to the fact that it was Foxton’s own fault that it had been deprived ot

the wharfages. The people, said Mr Henuessy, did not seize the opportunity of controlling the wharf when it was offered —they were asleep,—and sn it fell into the hands ot the Railway Department.

Mr Tolley suggested that a valuation be prepared, of the

wharf. Mr Stiles said the Board should ask the Shipowners’ Association to join them in the deputation.

The resolution was carried and it was decided to discuss the whole question and the Chairman’s notice of motion at the special meeting.