THE FOXTON WHARF.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 920, 19 November 1910, Page 4

THE FOXTON WHARF.

The following is the continuation of Mr P. J. Hennessy’s evidence given before the Railway Committee in support of the petition re purchase ol the local wharf: The consequence is that the river and bar are constantly in a very bad state, and are always getting worse, just because the Board has not got the revenue earned by the river to spend on it. The Foxton port, being the only one between Wellington and Wanganui, serves a very large and important area of country, and one which is bound to develop greatly in the future. By keeping the port from its natural and proper development by the process of starvation, by preventing the Board from spending on it the revenue which is earned by it, a great injustice is done to the whole district, by hampering the prompt and convenient carriage of goods, and by making the cost ot carrying and distributing much greater than it would be if the port were properly attended to and the river kept in proper condition by means of this revenue. In short, it is essential for the welfare of the district that the river should be kept in proper order, and the Harbour Board cannot keep it in proper order unless it receives the wharfage revenue for that purpose. The suggestion of rating the district for the improvement of the river is no solution of the difficulty, as it is not just that the people should be rated when the revenue for the purpose is already in existence. It amounts to taking away the natural sources of revenue for this purpose, and applying it to railway purposes, and then rating the district to make up for the loss. It would be the same thing as if the revenue earned by the river were expended, as it should be, in theSmaiuteuance and improvement of the river, and the district then rated for a contribution to the upkeep of the railways. Thus, if a rate were levied, it would in reality be for the benefit of the railways, and it would be better to make it so directly, instead of indirectly through the medium of the Harbour Board, The principle governing the levying of dues on shipping is set out in clause 111 of the Harbours Act, 1908, where it is provided that no dues shall be levied bv a Board unless they are to be applied to some shipping purpose, the benefit of which is to be applied to the ships paying the dues ; and these shipping purposes are defined as the erecting of works for the facilitating of shipping, and the payment of interest and sinking luuds on moneys borrowed for the purpose. This is exactly what the Foxton Harbour Board wishes to do. It is the true and just principle which should govern all tolls upon shipping industry. It is the principle which has been recognised by Parliament and established by statutory enactment; yet it is the principle which is wholly ignored and opposed by the action of the Railway Department at Foxton. I should mention, in regard to the gravel dredged up by the Railway Department, that it was not all sold. There were some 5,000 cubic yards mentioned in the report there, but the Railway Department refused to sell it to the Borough Council, which was willing to buy the lot of it at 2s per yard. It was mentioned in the Department’s letter that it was used for reclamation, when they could have got sand at qd per yard.

i. Hon. Mr Millar: Does the Railway Department raise any objection to your working the Board with your own money ? —We have net got money ; the Department has taken all our money.

2. From what ? From the wharf.

3. When did you have the wharf ? —We had it conferred on us by the Act of 1876 and 1878, and abolished in 18S6.

4. Who built it ?—The same Department built our wharf as built those at Wanganui, Patea, and Waitara.

5. Out of the Railway vote? — Out of the rates.

6. You think you have a perfect right to come and quietly annex another man’s property for yourselves ?—No ; we do not reckon that it should ever have been taken from us.

7- We built tbe wharf. You as a Harbour Board were done away with. You were reconstituted with full knowledge that you would not get it back. Now you come and think you are entitled to take it away? —We reckon that the wharfages are the natural revenue of the harbour.

S. That the shipping dues are ? —And the port dues too. 9. When you built a wharf yourself, but not when it belongs to other people ? —Of course, the chief point of the thing is, are we going to remedy a mistake that has been made in tbe past? That foreshore was taken from us ; it was the property of the old Harbour Board, and it was taken from them, but the Department never gave anything back to us, as it did to the other Boards similarly placed. 10. You received all the endowments since ? —We did not. 11. Have you not received from the Marine Department an endowment of something like 4,000 acres? —I do not think so. 12. Have you or have you not received the whole of the endowment set aside by Parliament ? Some 400 acres. 15. lam not certain about tbe acreage, but I want to know, have yoit or have you not received the whole of the endowment set aside by Parliament for the maintenance of this harbour ? —Yes, except the part you took away from us afterwards.

14. That was vested in the Railway Department, and the Marine Department had no more power to give you the Railway property than you had to give it to me. It was only afterwards discovered that it was included in the schedule, and it was only then cancelled ?—I think if you were to turn up the plans of this particular piece of ground, you would find that the portion you speak of was never included in the Proclamation of 1878. 15. Do you think that the consolidated revenue has a right to maintain the Foxton Harbour Board when they will not do anything to find their own money by way of rating ? —The consolidated revenue has no claim upon the wharfages accruing from the wharves at Foxton. 16. As a Harbour Board, you claim a property for which you paid nothing, and which belongs to another Department altogether. The position is that you claim this for the purpose of getting revenue, which you decline to put your bauds in your pockets for. You want to get what you never paid a penny for, and what is owned by another Department ? We do not claim anything that we have not a right to, but I say that we have a perfect right to that wharf. I. do not see why we should be put into any different position than the three ports I have mentioned, simply because we were forced out of existence in ISS6, The Railway Department never let a penny of the wharfages go when the Act said they should do so.

17. The Railway Department under its own Act had no authority to spend a penny in clearing up a harbour ? —1 do not thiuk they had any right to collect wharfages until 1894. 18. How did they get the authority iu 1894 ?—They brought in an Act.

19. Who had it before that? — The Railway, but they took it, 1 understand, illegally, because the position of ISS6 called upon the Governor in Council to perform all the functions as if a Harbour Board existed.

20. And all property vested iu the Crown then. Therefore, how could it have been illegally collected ?—The Government are too strong.

21. If a Bill is repealed, any property vested iu Crown which formerly belonged to a particular body, how can you say that the Crown illegally collected the revenue ? Has your Board been informed by the Government that when you take steps to rate yourselves and find a certain portion of the money, the Government will be prepared to favourably consider an application for assistance ? You have put that before me several times, but I am always met with the objection that it is not right we should be called upon to rate ourselves doubly, as the Railway Department is taking away our principal source of revenue, and to impose a further rate would mean that we should be still further improving the position and augmenting the revenue of the Railway Department without any corresponding benefit. That is, supposing the wharfage is at present worth ,£I,OOO, and that by means of rating we improve the harbour so that it comes to be worth ,£3,000, we should still have to collect the rate, while the Railway Department got the ,£2,000 extra.

22. Is the Railway Department asking you to improve the river i not. 23. Is it for your own benefit that you are improving it ? —I reckon that the Department ought not to step into this position. As citizens of the Dominion we are trying to advance the Dominion, and I do not think it is the Department’s place to try and block our advancement. They seem to think at present that we are there, and we may go to the wall ; that it is none of their business. That seems to be the answer.

24. Has the Department in any way attempted to stop you from improving your harbour ? —They have not.

25. But you want their money to improve it ? —We do not; but perhaps this would get over the difficulty : We reckon that we have got a grievance on account of the wharf, and we are prepared to buy it. 26. We are prepared to sell it ? —But the figure you are asking is the capital value. 27. Yes, it is earning per cent., and if I am a seller I have a right to put my price on an article. There is no compulsion on you to buy and on me to sell. The wharf is under offer to you at the value it is earning, or we do not want to sell at all ? —Yes, we have got the wharf under offer at that price. 28. Mr Craigie : You had a Harbour Board constituted long ago. Have • you got a harbour district ? —No, there is no harbour district except New Plymouth on our coast. We have a Board brought into existence. The original one was dissolved in 1886,

29. What does your Board do now ?—We have got no revenue. When we wanted the present Board constituted, we put all the endowments of the original Board into the Bill, but the Minister deleted that portion referring to revenues from the present wharf. Hon. Mr Millar: I was not Minister when that was done. 30. Mr Graigie ; Has your Board spent any money for wharves ? No ; the works were erected by the Public Works Department years ago, in 1881. (To be Continued.)