Untitled

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 2992, 30 January 1926, Page 3

(To the Editor)

Sir. —It was with interest that I read the report of the last meeting of the Foxton Harbour Board, and I would take this opportunity of writing a few lines on the position as it appears to me. In the first place, I noted a proposal, of a kind, advocated by Mr. McMurray, to strike a rate for improvement or otherwise for loss of revenue as against upkeep. A proposal, to my mind an apology for lack of enterprise in grappling with the question on a business-like basis. What concerns me most is the discovery that the wharf and shed should now be at the rush flats. Now, Sir, seeing that Mr. Nash and Mr. Holben were both members of the Board that was responsible for the present new wharf and sheds, I would say that there is something radically wrong with their business outlook, when they, as members of the Board, erect a wharf and shed, and before the paint on the plant is dry, they turn round and say they have done wrong, at the public’s expense. For sheer blundering, this takes the cake. Are we going to trust these members with the affairs of the people, after such an example? I question their attitude as regards the development of the port of Foxton. Mr. Holben’s statement that as a result of the strike in 1913 no more coal came through Foxton, is rubbish. Coal was shipped through Foxton some years after that strike. I worked coal in 1916 and, further, it was always admitted by skippers of the coal boats that Foxton was the fastest port to unload in. No, Sir, it was the policy of the Government of that time, to carry their own coal on their own railways, from Wellington, and those to whom coal was shipped for outside of the Government requirements, were dictated to by the shipping ring. For Mr. Holben’s information I would inform him that I wrote to the Harbour Board in 1911 protesting against ships being sent empty to Wellington, while after unloading the ships we immediately went to work, and loaded hemp in trucks which was railed to Wellington. There is more in the question of shipping than meets the eye, and Mr. Holben requires enlightening on these points, as well as the. reason why goods traffic by ship to Foxton thence rail, was suddenly railed from W’elilngton to Palmerston for instance, as well as the surrounding district, and with the ajdvent of - the motor, to be transferred to them, leaving the railways where they left the poit of Foxton, merely on the map. To my mind the main question centres around the scope of the Wellington Harbour Board’s district, and I say that while there is dual control, we will get no where. If Mr. Nash and Mr. Holben were to endeavour to limit the scope of the Wellington Harbour Board’s district, and to put Palmerston North and district solely in the Foxton Harbour Board’s district, then perhaps, we would get somewhere. The present method and speeches made by the above members of the Board force me to the conclusion that the position, as put by them, will not only scare the people, but also put the Harbour bankrupt in (finance, as they appear to be in business acumen and progressive ideals. The lecture of Mr. Nash to the Foxton members to vote a progressive policy, is pure fudge. Even if they could, what are the Palmerston business people going to do about it. Surely they must be prepared to do their bit. I would suggest the alteration of boundaries, as above and if a loan must be raised, then Palmerston North and district could do its share, practically, and until then we can only expect the present position to remain, and the outlook as de&d as those promises so readily given, so soon forgot. Yours etc., E. G. MARTIN.