FOXTON WHARF.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1120, 10 July 1913, Page 4

FOXTON WHARF.

THE PROPOSED PURCHASE

LEVIN BOROUGH COUN-

CIL’S liability

Mr B. R. Gardener, as Mayor of Levin and a member of the Foxton Harbour Board, made a statement to the Levin Borough Council on Monday night concerning the advisableuess of acquiring Foxtou wharf from the New Zealand Government, says the H*rcwhenua Chronicle. He said it was no use mourning over the fact that the Board, years ago, had allowed the wharf to pass into the Government’s hands ; the position had to be faced that the Government had the wharf to-day, and that the Board must buy back the wharf; the question was whether the Government would abate Its exhorbitant price of £28,700. In offering the wharf even at this price the Government Railway Department alleged it was generous, asserting that capitalised at 3 1 / 2 per cent, the wharf was worth £54,000. Mr Gardener went on to quote figures showing the financial stability of Foxton wharf. In a term of some five years its income had jumped from ,£1,200 to £3,787. Further, the Foxton Harbour Board, if it acquired the wharf, could administer things more equitably for the district than the Railway Department was doing ; to him it seemed the Department was trying to kill the port of Foxtou, in the interests ot the railways. He knew that tradesmen of these parts who used Foxton as a port made an absolute saving of from 25 to 40 per cent. On sugar, for instance, tos per ton could be saved. Besides, the larger the port of Foxton could be made, the more industries would be created in these parts, and the more trade for saddlers, horseowners, farriers, and soon. When the wharf was held by the Board, and properly worked, the installation of the Levin to Greatford railway would be expedited. Touching on the subject of the guarantees, Mr Gardener contended that they would be merely nominal; the figures he had quoted in regard to revenue showed that there was no likelihood of any deficiency arising in the Board's revenues. Of the guarantee, Levin’s share (based upon a valuation) probably would not come to more than £2O per annum. The purchase of the .wharf would be just as sale as Levin’s gas undertaking had been. There bad been pro-

phecies of trouble then, hut the prophets were never in evidence now. And the wharf proposition was an even sounder one. The local bodies’ representatives on the Board would surely see that sufficient revenue was raised from wharf dues, etc. On the question of price, Mr Gardener suggested that if the wharf were secured the purchase price should not be more than As one member of the Board he hoped the Railway Department would accept that reasonable offer. The alternative was to get an Order-in-Conncil from the Government, authorising the council to put up a wharf for itself.

Councillor Blenkhorn asked why the Wirokiuo riding was not included in the scheme-

The Mayor answered that Shannon’s goods all came by rail, and the proportion of Wirokiuo riding altogether was so small that the Foxton Harbour Board did not consider it worth while to include Whirokiuo riding in the Bill. Councillor Blenkhorn further asked if there was not a risk of a small borough like Levin being crushed in such a district; outvoted by a combination of Palmerston bodies, and involving an exceeding of the guarantee of .£2B per annum estimated as Levin’s. He meant that extra works on ibe harbour might be entered upon. The Mayor answered that the Bill before Parliament was merely a proposal to borrow a certain sum for a specific purpose. Besides, harbour boards could borrow only by special Act of Parliament, and on their income.

Councillor Matbeson asked how much Foxton was guaranteeing. The Mayor: I think they guaranteed ,£'s7 on a formeroccasion.

Councillor Matbeson then remarked that with this sum at stake Foxton would be vitally interested in keeping down expenditure, and would combine with Levin to combat any opposite endeavour on the part ot any Palmerston district bodies.

Councillor Dempsey asked would all the revenue now being made by the Government be derived by the Board ; and would that be available before the guaranteeing bodies would be called upon. The Mayor said it would be so.

Councillor Prouse said the risk was that in years to come, after the board had spent all its money, it would come back and say “ Are you going to let the whole thing drop for want of a little more money !” He had sympathy with the proposal, but he was not going to put other people and himself into this to be pinched. However, it it was to be only a guarantee liability of £2O per annum he would not stand in the way. He was chary of these things, but he thought they might be too canny at times. Councillor France said this was the thin edge of the wedge to create a special rating area. If they kicked up a row to-night they would get the rating area altered so as to let in the rich swamp lands as well as Levin Borough. He would not like to see his home mortgaged to provide (the Mayor: "Twenty pounds a year!”) No, not that; but to bolster up Foxton, He was sure that if this Was started the Board eventually would be taking Levin further. There were rating areas in New'* Zealand for harbours wherein the people were sorry they had been attached. Levin’s natural harbour was Wellington, not Foxton ; larger ships and deep water harbours were the trend of modern shipping conditions.

Councillor Mathesou said that from the point of view of the tradesman it was very much cheaper to bring goods from Foxton than Wellington. Councillor Lancaster said everyone would agree with him that Levin was a oear place to live in ; and if they could save money by going into this scheme it should be done. At the same time, he did not like to see Shannon and the Whirokino riding excepted.

Councillor Mackenzie would like to know exactly what would be the liability of Levin if it went in for this scheme. He would like to support it, but he did not care to commit the place to anything indefinite. The Mayor repeated that the Bill before Parliament only affected a ,£20,000 liability. Before more could be raised another Act would be necessary. Besides, one of the first charges would be against the board’s revenue, and this would be available for meeting interest charges, etc. Councillor France moved a motion as follows: —“Thai this council will not support the Foxton Harbour Bill in its present form, and that steps be taken to object thereto.” Councillor Blenkhorn said he was not wholly in favour of the motion, but he seconded it because he believed it would be advantageous to have the proposal discussed in all its bearings. On division the motion was rejected by five votes to three, the minority being Councillors France, Blenkhorn and Mackenzie,