WELLINGTON HARBOUR BOARD ELECTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 123, 28 April 1925, Page 5

WELLINGTON HARBOUR BOARD ELECTION.

[Published by Arrangement.]

To the Electors of tho combined Manawatu district, — It is pleasing to note that Mr Tolley has at lust come into the open, and states lhat he is in opposition to both tho sitting country representatives of the Manawat-u combined district. Our purpose is not to betlittlc Mr Tolley in any way, but rather with tho object of defending ourselves and the administration of the Port of Wellington. We have therefore to reply to his statements as follows:—He stales that there has been no election in the above district during the last 18 years. This is not true. Since 1911 the board has been reconstituted by Legislative Enactment, and it was due to the efforts of the then country representatives, Messrs C. E. Daniel! and .\i. Cohen, that country representation for the Wairarapa and Manawatu districts was increased from two members to four. Mr Tclley states that the nettsurplus of the board for the year was partly disposed of by rebates on wharf charges, and rather improperly suggests that this was only done Inst week and in the interests of those members seeking reelection. The facts are, that tho annual accounts were presented as required by statute at the March meeting, which is the proper occasion for any disposal of surplus profits. The amount of rebate was then decided upon —a special committee set up to consider its equitable distribution—-by-laws were framed carrying. this into effect —these being conlinned as required by statute at tile last meeting of the board, flis reference to a reduction on goods such as benzine oils, etc., is unfortunate, as these articles came in for the greatest reductions made, viz., 33 per cent. The policy of the board is in the direction of making tho port of Wellington a Eree, Port as far as is possible, eoinmeiusiirate with sound iinance. A further development is the concentration at Miramar of fuel oil storage, where hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent by the Standard Oil and the British imperial Oil Companies with that object. The board on its part is spending £60,000 on further wharfage accommodation so as to provide for the supply of fuel oil for shipping, and the distribution of refined oil from that centre. The railway facilities on the wharves are complained of Mr Tolley. It is only necessary to say that, these are the design and the work of Messrs Ferguson and Murchhanks—two of the most eminent harbour engineers in the Southern Hemisphere, aiid we deplore Mr Tolley’s “courage” in calling the work of such experienced experts into question. He carefully leaves out any reference to the new Pipitea wharf, erected at a cost of nearly £250,000 embodying all tho most modern and up-to-date equipment that experience can dictute. In tho same paragraph Mr Tolley appears to have used, an his own opinion, information which was disclosed to him by one of the undersigned as to projects which had been in hand for the past six months, with tho object of increasing facilities to country districts in having all goods in bulk delivered direct from ships to trucks. This can only be rendered possible when the accommodation at l’ipitea wharf is made completely available. Apart from that, it has been within the scope of consignees to have goods such as fertilisers, etc., loaded direct from the ship’s side into railway trucks for some time past. The statement that railway lines were especially designed on wharves to encourage or enforce tho use of the board’s cranes, bears its own refutation, else why should the board spend many thousands of pounds in providing rails on wharves at all '! Mr Tolley states that he is not in favour of tho purchase of a tug boat, large crane and dock provision, unless lio is satisfied tliat the development of the port demands it. It would take him years to acquire the necessary experience to know whether this is so or not. However, these things have been fully considered, and a number of men of at least average intelligence, unanimously decided that the prestige, convenience and economical working of the port, demand them. With reference to the question of dirt money, enlarged, upon by Mr Tolley, he will not deny that this constitutes u personal grievance between himself and the bourd. lie states he was unable to get any explanation of tho charge during the course of one of his disputes with the board. It was fully pointed out to him that the charge is part of an award of the Arbitration Court made in September, 1923. The double rates lie alludes to being payable, chiefly with respect to Continental slag, which is liable, to arrive in bad condition. The board is required to pay this double rate, also to tho men employed in receiving from ship’s slings, stacking in store, and delivery. Tho last paragraph of Mr Tolley’s manifesto is gracious; he stales: “That the enterprise and good management of all concerned have given us a heritage of great and increasing value.” What reason is thero then to displace those who, in their time, have assisted townrds that desirable achievement, and who have helped to make the port of Wellington the cheapest, the best managed, and the most up-to-date south of the line.

J. G. OOBBE, MAURICE COHEN,