PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1880. AGGRIEVED SETTLERS.

Patea Mail, 24 August 1880, Page 2

PATEA COUNTY MAIL PUBLISHED Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1880. AGGRIEVED SETTLERS.

Was it wise to attack the New Plymouth harbor scheme without talcing adequate care that the allegations in the petition to Parliament should bo all substantiated? A good case may bo spoilt by exaggeration of facts. This petition was signed by 3 76 persons, and both committees were loft to discover that some of those persons do not reside within the district affected by the 25 per cent, of land revenue for that harbor. How could they call themselves aggrieved settlers ? That is one of the allegations which the committee say were “ not fully sustained by the evidence.” Then was it worth while to base the whole case of aggrieved settlers on the specific allegation that part of the funds of the Harbor Board had been expended in a manner contrary to statute ? There is no doubt that a portion if not all the land revenue has been expended contrary to statutory allocation: but suppose that to be admitted, what does it amount to ? It would only follow that the aggrieved parties would have to seek their remedy by appeal to the Supremo Court. To expect that Parliament will take upon itself to adjudicate upon points of law is the simplicity of inexperience. Parliament may bo appealed to with the object of reconsidering a scheme or a policy sanctioned without full knowledge of the facts. The aggrieved residents, if they had been well advised, would have questioned the scheme on its merits, and have prepared cogent evidence against the practicability of a deep-water harbor in an open roadstead, upon the lines laid down in the plan. They would have treated the illegal appropriation of land revenue, not as the main objection, but as an incidental one. Instead of that, the petitioners sent one witness to Wellington, and he was expected to upset the scheme upon a merely technical irregularity. Wo deplore this result, for two reasons. Firstly, the enquiry by a committee of each House has had the effect of giving the scheme a now confirmation. Each committee has reported against the petition ; and the natural inference will be that, upon evidence which the aggrieved settlers deemed sufficient, being the strongest they could bring, there is no case against the Taranaki harbor scheme, and Parliament is advised not to interfere. Rather than confirm the scheme by an indiscreet attempt at interference, the aggrieved settlers should have remained quiet. Secondly, from all the evidence available to us, we believe the Taranaki harbor is not and cannot be worth the proposed expenditure. If the Government had millions of money to throw away in this kind of enterprise, having no regard to the compensating results, it would be possible to make a deepwater harbor at New Plymouth, and at other open roadsteads. Practical politicians must look at the question as a whole. Is it wise to throw away half a million of money on a scheme which, when finished, will be only the initial work of a larger scheme ? Could not the half-million be applied with greater benefit to a much larger number of colonists if apportioned among several harbors which arc really improvable? If a deep-water harbor could be made on the West Coast, giving adequate shelter, and at a feasible cost, the benefit to this district would be incalculable. The natural conditions are not favorable ; and to pretend to build a great harbor in the sea by throwing in treasure that never comes back is like crying for the moon.