THAMES HARBOUR BOARD. Minister of Marine Questioned. HIS ACTION UPHELD.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 276, 27 June 1888, Page 2

THAMES HARBOUR BOARD. Minister of Marine Questioned. HIS ACTION UPHELD.

About half-an-hour was spent by the House on Wednesday afternoon last in discussing the question of the Thames Harbour Board limits. Mr W. Fraser started the ball by asking tho Minister of Marine (1) what were the reasons which induced the Government to circumscribe the boundaries of the Port of Thames, and whether tho Minister was aware that such action will cripple the resources and revenue of the Harbour Board and prevent it meeting its liabilities ; (2) have the Government any objection to allow a Committee of the House to enquire into the matter. He said that from the constitution of the Fort of Thames it had extended beyond Bagnall's mill, but in 1887 Mr Larnach, having ascertained that the fishing industry was being destroyed through sawdust being thrown ink) the river, and for other reasons, extended tho limits so as to include all the navigable portions of tho Thames and Fiako rivers. The present Minister of Marine had seen fit to limit the boundaries of the harbour to the months of the river?, which were mill's within the former limits, thus confiscating the wharves which the Board hail erected without allowing tht»m compcn.sition. The Board had spent £57(5 onKapnand ,£7l on lilairnnd Uillc^pio's wharves. The total loss to tho icvonue was about £ 200 per annum. The Hoard had borrowed money from the local bodies, and were only able to pay the interest by the strictest economy, though their Secretary, who was a most able gentleman, received no salary at all. In consequence of the circumscribing of the the limits, the Board was now unable to meet the interest, while the river was now under no kind of control whatever, and sawdust and debris in tho river was destroying the fishing industry and silting up the harbour. He had been compelled to ask tho questions in order to satisfy his constituents as to the reasons which had induced the Minister of Marine to lake the stt>p, which would probably compel the Board to hand over their functions and responsibility to the Government. lion. Mr Fisher, in reply, said tho Government hud lakeu action because

when taking office they received petitions from a number of mill owners and settlors protesting against the extension of the lmrbour limits up the Thames river. Under the old definition the Hoard claimed jurisdiction ns far as HiKutaia, but this always bad been disputed, and it was the clear intention of the oiiginal proclamation not to give control ovov the river, but merely fix the seaward limits at five miles outside Opani point. Mr Fraser ought to have mentioned that (he money borrowed from | the Friendly Societies only amounted to £2GOO out of a total of £10,000 borrowed. The last portion of the loan was raised subsequently to the alteration of the harbour hunts, so that that could not affect the Board's powers of raising j money. The up-country districts, Paeroa J and To Aroha, were not benefited by the harbour works at the Thames, and it was hard that they should be taxeJl by the Harbour Board. (Hear, hear.) Settlers never used the harbour, as all their traffic from Auckland passed along the western side of the firth. 3 here was no affinity between the districts, and it would be hai\> to compel settlers to pay dues and rates. Besides, it was unfair to ask the mill -owners and riverside settlers to pay dues upon wharves which they had erected at their own expeneo. Their refusal to pay the interest on moneys raised for tbe sole benefit of the Thames Borough and its suburbs was quite reasonable. The debris and snage which affected the navigation did not come from the Thames river at all, but from the Kanaeranga. He had, therefore, regarded it as a simple act of justice to annul the proclamation issued eleven mouths ago. This in no way crippled the Harbour Board's finances, as the securities on which the money was raised still remained unaltered. He saw no necessity for tho appointment of a Committee to consider the matter. The injustice to the aeltlers was so manifest that he had thought it only justice to act as he bad done. Mr Fraser said he could not allow the matter to remain thus, and accordingly moved the adjournment of the House so that it might be discussed. Tho Minister had not been content to annul the extending proclamation, bub had even altered the original boundaries. The staking of the river, which contributed towards making it navigable, had been carried oufc bv the Board, and all the traffic up the river, except the steamer once a week from Auckland, went through tho Thames. The whaives at Bagnall's mill and at Kopu, which were originally within the harbour limits, had been taken away. The expenditure at Kopu was carried out by the General Government, and the Boavd on the othov hand had carried out its works to the best of ite ability. How they would continue to carry'on the business he could not understand. Ho wa^ surprised that tho Minister should refuse to allow the appointment of a Committee to enquire into the, matter, for he was sure that if that were done the statements of the Minister would be refuted, and his own be proved to be correct in the miin. Mr Kelly expressed the opinion that the action of Mr LainacU in extending the Board's jurisdiction was mo«t tyrannical. He understood that the interpretation of the oiiifinal proclamation had always been disputed, ami that the existing harbour limit 3 were tho^c originally included. Mr J. B. Whytc sni>l the Board were enabled to charge dues upon goods landed on any wharves on tho Thames or Pinko livers, or even on the bench. The settlors and mill-owners wove, quite willing to refund any moneys which had been spent by the Board up the rivers under mis- apprehension. Notwithstanding the liberality of its clerk, the expenses of the management of the Thames harbour was 27 percent of its tot.il levenun, as against about of p.c. in other pails of the colony. lie looked upon tho whole thing as a huge joke. Mr Fraser, in reply, said tho sotilcrs threw all thee rubbish into the river, and so destroyed the fishing industiy. Tn fact, arc subject to no control, but have all the fun, and do not pay for the music. This was tho " kernal " of tho joke. (Laughter.) The motion for tho adjournment of tho House was formally put and negatived, so that Mr Frasers question proved fruitless. — Thames Star, June 21st.