NEW DOCK FOR PORT CHALMERS. Wellington, August 19.

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 116, 22 August 1885, Page 4

NEW DOCK FOR PORT CHALMERS. Wellington, August 19.

In the Eouso of Representatives yesterday, on the motion for committal of the Otngo Dock Act Amendment Bill, Mt Ross shortly gave reasons why the measure should not become law. He urged that there was no likelihood of increased revenue from the dock from the influx of ships.— Caft. Sutter said that the Minister for Marine was trying to re move the trust from Otago Harbour Board to private individuals without assigning any reason for the^change.—Mr Macandrew said that the Minister in charge of the measure gave very good reasons for the change, namely, that the Harbour Board showed no inclination for going on with the construction of a new dock. The Board's administration had not been a success, and if the trust were handed over to trustees, its construction would be proceeded with. The dock could be constructed for £60,000. —Mr Gore said that no public bodies had ever more mismanaged their work than previous Otago Harbour Boards, but the present Board was as good a body as could possibly be got together. The original estimate of the dock was £84,000, but since then the dock had been increased 50 feet in length, and he did not think that anything less than £100,000 would be a sufficent amount to provide for the construction of it. —Mr Downie Stewart said that only one opinion existed in Dunedin as to the desirability of constructing the dock, but sufficient revenue was not forthcoming. The member for Ford Chalmers's zeal was mistaken, and in his (the speaker's) opinion, it would certainly be an error to construct the dock at present. — The committal of the measure was carried by 31 to 24.— In Committee, Mr Ross moved, " That in the constitution of the trust Port Chalmers Corporation only have the right to elect one person instead of two, as provided," Ayes, 28 ; noes, 28.— The Chair gave its vote for the retention of the word "two." —Mr Roes moved, to strike out the power of eleotion^ to Port Chalmers Corporation ; no similar power was granted to Punedin Corporation, and he desired to

place both bodies on an equal -footing. -This was losi by ,33.to,28.— MrjGore moved to insert 'the words : " And two by the Council of City of Dunedin."— The Minister for Marine and Mr Macandrew hoped this would not be agreed to. Already (they argued) Dunedin t had three members under the Act — the Mayor of Dunedin, Chairman of the Harbour Board, and President of the Chamber of Commerce.— Mr Fergus said- the bulk of the Otago people were opposing the measure, yet the Government , were lending their weight to the member for Port Chalmers to the prejudice of all the Otago country members. The Government, by meaus of a majority at their command, were forcing the measure down the throats of the people of Dunedin and of Otago,— Mr Macandrew denied the insinuation that the Government had brought down the measure at his instance. It was merely a tbird edition of two previous Government bills. The construction of the dock had been delayed through the tactics of the Continuous Ministry, and now the members of that Ministry were adding insult to injury by opposing the bill at every stage.— Mr Brown denied that" the measure was being forced down the throats of the Otago members. Ten of the Otago men voted for its second reading and four against it.— Major Atkinson made a vigorous speech in opposition to* the bill. He denied that his Ministry had committed laches in connection with the dock question, and confessed to his astonishment that the Government had supported the introduction of this bill. He was not opposing the construction ofthedock,butopposingthetakingthematter out of the hands of a most competent set of men, and placing it in the hands of men who were interested in making a dock for the purposes of local expenditure. — Mr Barron and Sir Julius Vogel defended the bill, as they conceived a change in the conduct of the trust was desirable. —Mr Ross emphatically denied that the Board was antagonistic to the construction of the dock. They merely said they could not possibly see their way to meet the sum required for interest on the construction of the dock. On division the proposal to add the words was lost by 27 to 20. Little further opposition was offered to the bill, which was reported with slight amendment. — On the motion for third reading, Mr Gore said he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not oppose the construction of the dock at Port Chalmers. He had two reasons for opposing the bill— that the Harbour Board, or, as they might now be termed, Dock Trust, were not in a position financially to construct the dock, and the result would be that if the work were undertaken next year the trust would come before the House for additional funds, and theee would have to be provided. The other reason was that an Act would have to be paased, empowering the Harboar Board to expend a portion of their funds on this work. The Otago Harbour Board, as at present constituted, consisted of men qualified for the duties entrusted to them, and they had evidenced a sincere desire to fulfil the same. If the bill became law, it would be tantamount to saying that they had not fulfilled their duties in not undertaking the construction of the dock, and he doubted whether under such circumstances the Government nominees, Messrs E. B. Cargill, Donald Reid, Mackerras, and John Roberts would take the snubbing this Houso had. given them without resigning their positions. For these reasons, and as protests against the action of the Government, he moved as an amendment that the bill be read a third time this day six month-. —The third reading was carried by a L-.io majority— ayes 34, noes 32— and the bill passed.