The Daily News. MONDAY, JULY 20, 1903. HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 168, 20 July 1903, Page 2

The Daily News. MONDAY, JULY 20, 1903. HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT.

By the substantial majority ot 5 to 3 the New Plymouth Harbour B:ard decided on Fiiday to introduce a Biil into Parliament to authorise improvements to the harbour to provide accommodation for direct shipping. P is exceedingly gratifying to notice that there was really no sound argument against the proposal, An attempt was made to ressurect the "inceise o' rate bogie," but it was a lamentable failure. It certainly does tend to mak< Taranaki, which is claimed to be the most prosperous part of the colony, loo> ridiculous to suggest that (the advactege of direct shipping being admitted by everyone) the owners of property totalling nearly eight millions io value arc afraid of the burden of the interest on the sum of £150,000, the expend! ture of which is to be spread over e period of six years. Another objection raised by Mr Maxwell was that there was no trade, but his own proposal " to set up a committee to consider the best means of establishing a service by which ocean boats anchored at the port can be tendered," shows tha- ■ Mr Maxwell does not believe his own statement because if giving facilities tp be tendered will bring the ocean boats, and Mr Maxwell quoted Waitara and Wariganui es a proof that it would, how much more readily would the ocean steamers come here when they cin load and ui.load at the wharf. Some months ago, dealing with this question of increase in trad >, we pointed out that by taking advantage of the long distance rates on th>railway, several classes of goods from Canterbury and Dunedin can belandrd, if brought to the breakwater by the Upolu, at Wangacui cheaper than via Wellington. The same thing applet to all the country lying between Wanganui and the breakwater. If direct steamers were trading to the breakwater the saving would be greater on both imports and exports, and even the Waimate Plains, which Mr McLean now says derive no benefit from the existence of tbe breakwater, (a state ment which we know is not correct), would soon feel the direct benefit of! Both Mr Maxwell and Mr McLean ignore the reports cf the engineers, and indulge in wild statements which, we hope, ratepayers will have too much sense to take notice cf. For ins-ance Mr McLean told the Board, in the most confident manner, that no ocean steamer would lie at the wharf wifcb less than nine feet of water under her and this, jd spi!e of tie f,ct that Mr Marchant s'ated deliberately I at rhe previous meeting of the Hoard 'ha?; a trot or t;vo or water vas srnple. Which, wu a;>k, i.i tho most likely to b-' correct, Mr Karchant a marine engineer cf repute, v-ho has no interest to .':eiv« b:it i« responsible to tre Boar' fer his ass. term ns, arid has male a life s-udy of the subject, and further has a profoosiosa! reputation to maintain, or Mr McLean, who is quite irresponsible uid without; p.-ofessionul knowledge ■ ut has stated his intention "to fight tha improvement scheme tooth and nail." It is biased, irresponsible statements which do so much harm. V/a believe we are justified in snyirg that t-iei-e are few residents in I'ar.imki, if they fully b--'!iw->d that an oXpnnditure of sty £150,000 would p>:»-; vide accommodatii u for dLecv s oa.uers '

to trade regularly to the port, but ; would support the scheme ; but their | /doubts and prtjudices are kept alive by, Maxwell and McLean. We ask these I | ratepayers to ca; efu'ly the plans . and r- ports of Messr.< Merchant and Napier Bell. Theso n ports were made after careful enquiry and personal inspection of the port and its surroundings, aided by the experience gained daring the erection of the present breakwater, and its effectiveness as a port. These reports were not giv-n verbally, or hastily, but the carefully- , thought-out written opinions of experienced marine engineers, aware of the responsibility which rested witt ohem. In these reports we have it ■rated claarly acd emphatically, with ■ tbe fullest details regarding tin various . item?, that for the sum of £145,000 a port capable of accommodating, with wharfage and other conveniences, quite t numb?r of vassals, including several f the Gj'hic ck' s. No one, who has i pn feesiocal repu'a" ior,has attempted to dispute this. Messrs Maxwell and U McLean, however, do dispute it, and 9 we muss leave the ratepayers to diaw - their own coaclusions.