TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7064, 9 February 1893, Page 2

TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

[to the editor.] Sib,— Now that we are on the evo of the election of a new Harbour Board, I would ask you to accept a few words addressed to the electors by one who though only a small ratepayer has good reason to claim an interest in the port of Timaru and its district. To those who are well up in tbe subject of harbour matters there may not be found much beyond what they already know, but there are I am sure a large number of ratepayers who have heard only one side of the question (I don’t pretend to say which), and who are therefore naturally biassed more or lees one way or the other. The vital importance which these harbour works have for all of as, from tbe owner of broad acres to the bolder of a modest two-roomed cottage on a quarter acre section, makes it necessary at this stage for every elector to be guided by extreme caution in exercising his privilege as a ratepayer and voter, more especially as things have been said and written by both of the opposiing parties which perhaps in calmer moments would have been avoided.

I must commence by reiterating the following sequence of events, dating as far back as two years ago : (1.) In January, 1891, the Board took the first steps towards appointing a commission, which was formed of Messrs O’Connor and Goodsll.

(2.) In April, 1891, this commission sent their report to the Board, strongly recommending the shifting of shingle and discarding permanent works. They also recommended a trial of the Board’s " Ptiestman ” dredge by way of an experiment. (3.) In May, 1891, the Board appointed a second commuaion, formed of Messrs Wilson and Napier Bell. (4.) In June, 1891, the report of the second commission was put in, which recommended tbe same course as that adopted by tbe first one, and.partioularly empbaauod the proposal to shift the shingle in preference to any other method. (5.) In Juno, the same year, the Board decided to have a three months’ experiment of the “ Priestman " dredge in moving the shingle. (6.) In October, the same year, the Board's engineer reported that tbe experiment had been a groat success, and that it was apparent the approach of the shingle could be kept back with ease at a coat within the Board's means.

(7.) In January, 1892, the Board decided to proceed with plans, etc , for suitable plant and gear for removing the shingle. (8.) In February, the same year, these plans ware submitted to tho Board and approved, and subsequently they were submitted to the following experts for their approval;—Captain Ticehuret, marine surveyor ; Captain Cameron, ship’s husband of the U S.S. Company ; Mr John Cook, super intending engineer of tho same company. The approval of these gentlemen being obtained, tenders was called for in England and tho colonies, the whole plans being first submitted to Mr John Darling, of Glasgow, and Messrs Denny Bros., the noted shipbuilders, who, with a few alterations, gave them their unqualified approval. That is the position which we have now arrived at, and it will be borne in mind that right throughout, the whole of the experts have advised (be removal of shingle as more useful and economical than any other plan. I have mentioned the above facts to show the reader that each successive step appears to have been taken with the greatest caution and only upon the best advice that could be got. I have been hoping that the “opposition " would suggest some alternative scheme which would render the movement of shingle unnecessary, and at tho same time would be within our moans without additional taxation. So far I have only heard of two proposals, one being the extension of the present permanent mole and the other being the erection of groins at some given point or points. It would be as well to point out a few of the difficulties surrounding either or both of these proposals. (I.) No man may interfere with the coast line with any permanent work without the consent of the Government being first obtained to a special commission’s report. To whom can the Government go for this report ? We have already exhausted the first ability in the colony. Is it suggested that in order to please Timaru they would go past the Now Zealand engineers and choose others ? Or do 'the opporition members expect that, having recommended tho removal of shingle to the Board, the engineers will advise the new Board to proceed with groins and permanent works in preference ? (2 ) Suppose, however, that this difficulty disappears, we then have to consult the ratepayers, of whom three-fourths have to give consent to any further loan, (t assume that no one thinks for a moment that either work could be done without borrowing.) Can any one believe that there are not more than a fourth of those who have property to risk, who would oppose the loan, in the face of the testimony brought against the proposals ? (3.) Even, however, if that difficulty begot over, then comes the quesion of funds, which we all know is very necessary for such purposes. I ask is there a single ratepayer sufficiently sanguine to believe that the British investor would take up our debentures in the face of the recent developements amongst harbour financial arrangements in Now ZsaI land ? Are the ratepayers aware that the whole of the Board’s present revenue falls short of nearly £4OOO required to pay off the interest on the present debt ? How can we then make the investor believe that the same revenue will pay interest on further loans ? It is all very well to say (he advance is secured by the land. The British money lender does not want land. He wants interest, and he likes to see it paid out of revenue. It simply means that such a loan would result in further taxation, which we could do very well without just now. I would like to mention here that the cost of removal of the shingle is calculated to come out of revenue , and does not entail any fresh taxation. Many ratepayers, I think, are unaware of this. (4.) There is one mi re little matter which boars considerably on the question of new works, and that is tho inevitable delay of necessary operations. Frutn the time the new Board were well settled to the time their loan was floated at least two years must elapse. What, may I ask, is the shingle doing in the meantime ? Will it ceaso to approach until the new Board is prepared with its arrange- J meats for checking it? Or will a Divine Providence intervene on our behalf ? If any ratepayer feels curious on this point let him go to the Barbour Board office and read the reports and enquire from the proper officials, and be will learn what the shingle is doing now and bow far it has thrust its toe towards the cant up to date. I rather fancy it will enlighten him as to bow be should vote next week. I should remind ratepayers that even if the Board bad £50,000 at their command, they could only expend it on new permanent works after complying with the conditions which I have enumerated. It is quite a fallacy to imagine that the Board could proceed with the work right away. I have heard of ratepayers saying they intended to vote against the present majority because they had been told that they (the majority) had “ wasted the Board’s funds ” in the experiment with the Priestman dredge. I cannot believe there are any electors who could be led away by such a silly statement as that. The experiment was the inevitable outcome of the report and recommendation of the engineers, and if the Board had not given it a trial they would have been guilty of the grossest neglect. Every practical business man knows that before launching out into any undertaking, the results of which are naturally unknown, the most natural thing for him to do is to experimentalise in some email way and proceed afterwards according

to the results obtained. What would be thought of the directors, we will say, of a mining company, who having purchased a new piece of land (the value of which was unknown to them) rushed blindly into huge purchases and expenditure P Their first steps would of course be taken with caution by way of an experiment. Even if the “ Prie?t man” experiment bad turned out an utter failure the money could not bojooked upon as wasted. We have it in evidence, though, that in this case the experiment gave clear indications that the approach of the shingle could be stopped with ease, and at a coat within the means of the Board. I have beard it stated that the present majority will lose a large measure of support in consequence of their action in not deferring the question until the new Board was elected. I hope and believe that the number of electors who have this in their minds is few. Let me again remind them that for two years the present Board have been completing their arrangements with a care and caution seldom shown in public or private life. I urge thoae.eleotors. to remember the exigency of the case, the inevitable disastrous results that must follow delay (if the reports of the engineers are reliable). Think of the enormous interests involved in this question, and the necessity for immediate action. Take another view of the case : Suppose rhe present Board had shelved the settlement for the new Board, and that the delay caused thereby had resulted in some misfortune wh'oh was nearer than was suspected, what would bo the position of the members of that unhappy Board, who with every advice __ and all that experience could give them, in their hands, to guide thorn, had weakly withheld the final measures which would have put them ia a secure position. The electors in such circumstances would certainly turn on them, and I think rightly too. What would be thought of that man who being at the point of death and advised by hie medical adviser that his life could be protracted only by submitting to certain immediate lines of conduct, chose to disregard that warning and trusted to some unknown windfall by which his life could be prolonged ? Suppose the new Board is found to be composed entirely of non-akingle shifters, it seems to me that to propose either of the two courses referred to (and we know of no other contemplated by them) they would at once come into conflict with all the skilled advice which the colony has available, a course I am satisfied none of them, would dare to take. A man may play fast and loose with his own property as he likes, but when he undertakes to fill a position of trust and to manage other people’s affairs, be is called upon to exercise ordinary business care and prudence, and if anyone’s interests are prejudiced through carelessness, ignorance, or unskilfulness on the part of such trustee, I am disposed to think the law would saddle the responsibility upon the right shoulders. I recommend every elector who is wavering in his mind as to who shall get his vote, to read carefully the letter signed by Mr Acton, which appeared in your issue of the 19th January. It is the letter of a cautious, sound, business man, and can safely be accepted as a guide. These, Sir, are my views, I make no complaint against or judgment in favour of either party. I have carefully analysed the material from which a common-sense conclusion can be drawn as to the present position of matters, and I can see no better coarse for the electors to take than to support those members who up to the present have formed the majority, and who have shown such patient care and caution in our interests as well as their own.

Ab I read matters, any great delay must result in our being left with a useless harbour. Our thousands of tons of grain and other produce will again roll up to Lyttelton, a further depreciation in our properties must inevitably tabs place (and Heaven knows they are low enough already) .leaving nothing but a departed glory to Timaru and district. If the shingle-shifters fail, we can then talk about the other alternatives, and our position to do so will be so much easier by the fact that the engineers’ recommendation for removing shingle will no longer stand in the way. 1 have taken up a great deal of your space, but if what I have written has in* flucnced only a few of those who at present are undecided I feel I shall not have written in rain. I am, &c., Eatbpaybe. Timaru, February Bth, 1893.