The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1919. WELLINGTON HARBOUR

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10287, 23 May 1919, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1919. WELLINGTON HARBOUR

Mr Cable, in the remarks he made in in support of his proposal to prepare the way for a floating dock, was trebly right. He was right in his declara-. tion that Wellington "harbour —the site which makes the City of Wellington supreme —is the first in New Zealand and the most important harbour in the Pacific between West America and Australia; his implication that a dock is the urgent necessity in the interests of the harbour was right also; and hewas" right in asking the Harbour Board to limit its efforts for the present towards the establishment of a dock to the securing of access no the dock site during the progress of the final reclamation works. We must limit the meaning for practical purposes simply to the end of the present scheme of reclamation. That is the practical, view-.' ; Theoretically there is nothing ..to-,.hinder the possibility -of. reclamation going some day as tar as Petone, or Day’s Bay, or Muritai. Consider history. When St. Martin’s was built ‘fin the fields,” the men of that day regarded the expansion of London as complete,, but to-day they know better. "Whether the great Babylon of our Empire is to be a. collection of ruins for a future New Zealander to sketch, or a desert of houses connected by i strings of garden cities with the Land’s End and John o’Groats —un other words, whatever may be the fate of London—there can be no doubt about the immensity of development awaiting Wellington and Wellington harbour. Let a man imagine the country populated as Japan is—a certainty—and using its hydro-electric power to the fullest extent, and he will find it impossible to limit the expansion of the chief harbour and of the Capital City. The evidence is geographic and irresistible. In face of such a future, the necessity for docking facilities is not arguable. If it were, then it would be possible to argue against the necessity of docking facilities for large fleets, commercial and combatant. The fact that great fleets are coming here concludes all discussion, except of the method of construction. The exception seems to have been the only thing discussed in the past. And the result of discussing the best method of con-i etruotion produced the most remarkable discovery of “How not to do it” in the annals of New Zealand or any other country. The memory of that unmitigated fiasco is enough to make one shudder whenever the word dock Is pronounced. That awful memory not only recognises the limitation of Mr Cable’s motion towards the dock of the future, but imperatively forbids the very appearance of hurry in the matter. It is all very well to rant about the glories of our destiny, but it is better to remember what ranting without wisdom-planning gave us. The resolution of to-day, whilo securing the future dock a habitation as well as a name, secures also time enough to enable the Harbour Board to discover the way to build docks, instead of wrangling about them, their sites, approaches, equipments, and the rest. Mr Cable’s proposal represents the only way in which any man with a face could revive the dock question for the Harbour Board. Wo congratulate him. He has secured as much power of promoting docks as it is safe to put into the bands of the Harbour Board. When the board sets to work about the right way of construction, discovers how docks are built, and proves its discovery, it will be time to take the real step towards completion. The probability is that the time will come soon. "Wo sincerely hope the knowledge will come with it. We hope, also, that when the time does come it will find a Government able to defend the public interest by using its statutory powers if necessary. The need of ships docs not stand alone for the consideration of the Harbour Board. There are also tho needs of men who attend on the ships. Their work is arduous, uncertain, and dangerous. These needs are of protection and comfort. In the past they have not been neglected. Let the board have due credit. On the other hand the protection has not been enough. For example, a Commission report pointed out some very serious dangers from machinery tackle, etc., and made recommendations, but many months went by before tho necessary regulations were gazetted. Moreover, there is a vast deposit of sanitary and hygienic power in tho hands of the Health Department and L (he local bodies, yet (he workers on tho

waterside when exposed to the danger of epidemic infection —a thing absolutely beyond doubt, and manifest to tho most" ordinary lay capacity—have had to make their own quarantine regulations, and very well they made them, and a great public service did they thereby render. Then as to comfort, including earning facilities, It must be admitted that the board has not neglected its duty, but there are other interests of which so much can hardly bo said. Without coming down upon the board for tho existing state of things which leaves immensely much to be desired, it is possible to say that the summary of these conditions was contained in Mr Wright’s motion of Wednesday, and his supporting speech, which covered the whole ground from the intermittenco of employment to the absence of very necessary accommodation, and which certainly should he accorded generous recognition'. The only fault to be found with the motion was found by those members of the board who insisted on , inserting words adding the men to the proposed conference of employers with the board. They were right, because tho first condition of success in the allaying of what nre called labour troubles, is the face-to-face meeting of all interests openly at a round table. ■ This is coming to be universally recognised, and ought to have been recognised by the board. The objection was not against tho admission of the men to tl>c conference, but against their admission until the employers have formulated some plan of superior up-to-date accommodation. The fallacy of ifus is double. In the first place, who, in tho absence of the men, will persuade the employers in case of their refusal to believe in the necessity of doing anything at all? In the second place, if the employers fall into line who can better show thorn the wants of tho men from the practical point of view, than the men themselves? For these, reasons w© much regret that the board’s majority rejected the amendment for tho inclusion of tho men. At all events, the men will bo admitted, apparently, when a scheme has been formulated for discussion. The resulting conference will, we feel sure, prevent the recurrence of any such question, by showing the superiority of face-to-face methods in the open.