The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, September 5, 1912. THE FOXTON WHARF.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1090, 5 September 1912, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, September 5, 1912. THE FOXTON WHARF.

Under the heading of a “Glaring Injustice” our Palmerston evening contemporary draws a comparison between the spoonfeeding treatment meted out by the Government in times past to the West Coast Harbour Boards, as compared to the scandalous neglect and revenue-grabbing injustice inflicted upon the local port. Our contemporary makes pointed reference to the West Coast Boards, to which reference was made in the Railway Statement last week. Fvidently the early attempts of these Boards to pay their way were not very successful. A kindly- disposed Government then stepped in, and, with a lordly disregard for sound finance or established precedent, passed measures fixing annual subsidies. In the cases of Westport and Greymouth the assistance took the form of receipts from branch railways, besides, in the case of the former, rents from laud on the river frontage. The sequel to such lordly generosity is found in the last Railway Statement. The new Minister for Railways evidently does not contemplate with favour the receipts from so profitable a branch line as Westport going into the coffers of the Harbour Board, and his comment is in regretful vein; “Unfortunately the net revenue of the most profitable line in the Dominion, situated in the South Island, namely, the Westport line, which last year returned £l2 is i id per cent on the cost oi construction, does not go to the Dominion, but goes as an endowment to the Westport Harbour Board under special Acts, and the Dominion at the same time is paying interest on the cost of construction.” According to the Estimates recently placed belore Parliament, Greymouth receives a subsidy ot .£29,000 a year, which appears to be comparatively modest besides the huge sum of £67,000 which Westport takes from the State annually. Such instances of spoonfeeding are fortunately rare, and can hardly be taken as a precedent. They are so glaring as to demand immediate attention, and the sooner the Government puts a stop to such anomalies the better. . . . What, then, is to be said lor the extraordinary policy which has been pursued in dealing with one body operating in a locality which has an important connection with Palmerston North and the Manawatu district generally ? In the face of the lavish assistance given to Westport and Greymoutu, what is to be said of the neglect and hostility shown towards the Bunion Harbour Board ? Here we have a port which is a decade behind its time, a town which has been kept back tor nearly a generation, and a large district which has been hampered in its commercial pursuits —'all because a Government has pursued a narrow-minded policy. The facts concerning the Poxton wharf really constitute one of the most glaring injustices ever perpetrated in the public life of this country when viewed in the light of the treatment meted out to other Harbour Boards. Many years ago the Government constructed a cheap wharf at the river port, and a thriving coastal trade was established. The revenue from the port has paid for the wharf many times over. In fact, on present calculations, an average year's revenue almost equals the whole outlay on this structure. During the late “ liberal "regime it was the settled policy of the Railway Department which contiolled the

wharf, to keep the port of Foxton in such a couditiou as to discourage sea traffic in order that the coastal trade would not become too serious a rival to the railway. Hence Foxton’s growth was stunted. Then the Harbour Board was brought into being, and an endeavour was made to secure the wharf as the first step to improving the port. But a policy of dogged obstruction was pursued by the Railway Department. Reasoning from the treatment meted out to other harbour boards, it was the duty of the State to band over the wharf free of cost to the Harbour Board. But not only was this not done, but a demand was made for a sum of money said to be equal to ten or twelve times the original cost of the structure. The extraordinary course was taken of capitalising the earnings of the wharf, and the Railway Department coolly asked the Board tor ,£23,000. The Board was willing, and is still willing, to give a liberal sum for the wharf. But is it justified in doing so ? Is the State justified in claiming such a sura ? Is the State justified in claiming anything at all for the wharf? It is the State’s obvious duty to encourage the Board to develop the port to the very best of its ability, and to that end we contend that the wharf should be handed over free of charge. The State has already made a handsome profit on the wharf, and it has no moral right to retain it any longer. The port of Foxtou is in urgent need of development, and proper development can only be ensured by the Harbour Board having an effective control over the wharf,”