FOxTON HARBOUR.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1124, 22 July 1913, Page 3

FOxTON HARBOUR.

DEPUTATION TO ministers.

A deputation, representative of local bodies in the Manawatu district, waited upon the Prime Minister (the Hon. W. F. Massey), the Hon. W. H. Herries (Minister for Railways), and the Hon, F, M. B. Fisher (Minister for Marine), to submit proposals for a change in the methods of administering the Foxton Harbour. Mr J. Robertson, M.P., introduced the deputation, and Mr D. Buick, M.P., for Palmerston, also supported them. early history. Mr P. Hennessy, chairman of the Foxton Harbour Board, said that in 1878 the Harbour _ Board was constituted, invested with certain endowments, and with power to collect charges. Unfortunately there had been some misunderstanding, and the people ot the Foxton district had not taken up the privileges given them in common with residents of other ports on the coast. The Railway Department finally got possession of the wharf, in the same year the Act was passed, and through the Board being unable to get the revenues of the port, and through the harbour being rendered useless by the cut freights of the Manawatu Railway Company, little shipping had come up the river for some years. In the end the Board was dissolved in 1886. About the next year, however, the flax industry came into existence, and at once the harbour became desirable. The river was found to be too shallow for easy navigation, tut no revenues were available for the work of deepening the channel. The Harbour Board was resuscitated, and the Board re-constructed legally, but the Board had not by the new Act been given power to get the revenues of the wharf. The Railway Department had refused to hand over the revenues, or to lease the wharf, but had offered to sell it at prices ranging at different periods from £20,000 to ,£28,000, These prices the Board could not afford to pay. What the deputation asked was that the Board be allowed to build a new wharf, and that the Government put in a railway connection to it. Mr Massey : What would become of the old wharf ?

Mr Hennessy : It would still be be there.

Mr Massey: Would it be of any value ? In reply Mr Hennessy stated that it would certainly interfere with the value of the present wharf. Mr Hennessy urged that the Foxton Board should be given the same privileges as boards in Wellington or elsewhere. In reply to Mr Massiy he said the Board would be willing to make the Government an offer for the old wharf of £IO,OOO in order to obviate the necessity of building a new wharf which would enter into competition with the present wharf. He pointed out that • if the harbour were improved the Railway Department would, by getting coal up the river instead of by way of Wanganui, land coal at Palmerston at is per ton less than they could at present. Of course the district would profit very much more by the cheaper freights. SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES. Mr J. A Nash, Mayor of Palmerston, and member of the Foxton Harbour Board, said the Board approached the Government with some confidence, and regarded this as a “ final flutter.” The present deputation was the outcome of a largely-attended meeting at Palmerston. At present owing to lack of funds, the Foxton Harbour Board could do nothing, could not even pay its secretary an adequate salary. Undoubtedly the present wharf was in a dilapidated and even dangerous state, and something ought to be done to Improve facilities of the port generally. The price at which the wharf was offered to the Board by the Railway Department was going up all the time. If the Government retused to sell at a price the Board could pay, or if the Government would refuse to allowl the Board to build a new wharf, perhaps the Board might be allowed to appeal by petition to the House of Representatives. This would relieve the Government of all responsibility. Failing any other relief, he suggested that the Board be given some reasonable endowment. Without assistance in some shape the Board could not carry ou, and the keeping of the harbour open was a matter of importance to a very big district. Mr G. Stiles, Mayor of Foxton, supported all that the other speakers had said. He did not think it was fair for the Government to capitalise the value of the wharf on the net revenue. He mentioned the price that the Government had quoted to the Board, viz. ,£2BOOO, and brought forward the Department’s own figures which showed that taking the average return for the past five years, which was ,£2905 and the expenditure £1476 leaving a net revenue of £1429. If the Board were to buy at the price offered, this would mean that the interest and sinking fund would amount to £1540 per annum, or a nett loss of £IOO. Not only would there be a loss, but the Board would be in the same position as at present, without any funds for improving of river navigation. Therefore it was unfair to capitalise the net earnings as the Railway Department spent nothing whatever on the river. He trusted therefore that the Government would deal fairly by them, and that they would see

their way to allow the purchase price to stand at £IO,OOO which was considerably more than the wharf was worth, as it was clearly shown there was no goodwill attached to it.

Mr E. H. Crabb, member of the Palmerston Borough Council, said the Railway Department had no right to divert the wharfage revenue to improve the railway accounts, when the Harbours Act laid it down that all revenues from a port must be spent on improvement of that port. Mr h. R. Bryant and Mr D. Buick, M.P., supported the other speakers. PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY. The Prime Minister, in replysaid he had been very much inter, ested in what the speakers had said, and he could sov that as a result he understood the position of affairs very much better than he ever had before. It seemed to him however that there were very serious difficulties in the way of arriving at a settlement. The position appeared to be that the Foxton Harbour Board wanted to control the harbour, and that they were prepared to pay £ 10,000 for the old wharf, or in the alternative they were prepared to spend £IO,OOO on a new wharf. It seemed to him the alternative was hardly worth considering, because under that scheme the present wharf would be useless. The Railway Department said that the wharf was worth to them ,£36,000, this result being reached by capitalising the net revenue, but they were prepared to take £28,000. On the other hand, the Foxton Harbour Board said that they had previously been offered the wharf for ,£20,000, but this amount was still ,£IO,OOO more than they were prepared to pay. He was inclined to favour the suggestion made by Mr Nash that the Harbour Board should petition Parliament. The matter could then be referred to a special committee or to the Petitions Committee, and evidence could be heard- After a full enquiry of this kind, it was probable he thought, that) an arrangement could be made by the parties concerned. Mr Herries, as Minister for Railways, was in the position of trustee, and it was his duty to see that the property of the Railway Department was conserved. He must not give away the property of the people of the whole of the Dominion to any paiticular section of the people.

The Hon. W. H. Herries said he had not previously heard that that the wharf was in a state of disrepair, as the deputation had suggested. His last report in February last was that the wharf was in good order. He would have inquiries made to discover which statement was correct.

In reply to Mr Nash, the Prime Minister said there would be a difficulty about giving the Foxton Board an endowment, of land, owing to the fact that there was no crown land near, and he did not think it would be good policy to give the Board as an endowment land in another district.

A member of the deputation suggested iu reply that it the Harbour Board could get the revenues of the wharf, they would need no other endowment, nor would they ask for any other.