The Daily News MONDAY, JUNE 8. A HARBOR BILL OPPONENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 143, 8 June 1908, Page 2

The Daily News MONDAY, JUNE 8. A HARBOR BILL OPPONENT.

In another column, the llawera ward ' representative on the Uarl)«r "4ioarcl, .Mr. .laeoli .Unix, replying to the "Daily Ncw.s " evilicisiii of Lis platform utterances, endeavors to justify bis attitude liv staling the grounds on which he and ins i-ii-ii|i|>u>iliunist.s oppose the Loan Kill. Mr. Jlarx's explanation regarding liis reported ntaleiunii that the har■lior had cost to date over half a million pounds is ingenious, to say the least. While we accept .Mr. .Marx's qualifying explanation, it is certainly singular that of the many reports of his meetings that have l.ecu published, only the positive! assertion was made, and always as an example of the extravagance of harbor construction—"a sink hole for money"— the allegation with which Mr. Marx's lieutenant in the campaign supported his chief's remark. The explanation, however, docs not in the lea-t relieve .Mi. .M.irx from the charge of inisreprc sontation made against him. What other object had lie to serve in emphasising that the harbor had cost over VJ500.000 but to mislead those, whose knowledge of harbor board finance was inferior to his own. to the conclusion that the total cost had been a charge I on the province'; It is a poor acknowledgment to the foresight of those of a bygone decade, that their wisdom -in inalienably diverting to the people of the province magnificent endowments ana land fund revenues that otherwise would probably have gone to swell the .national colic'tv-shoiild eventually he i used to the disparagement of the object they created for the lament of the penpie. The linnucial economic absurdity created by Mr. Marx of charging the interest on the loan also to the .capital cost of the harbor, we may safely leave | to himself lo justify.

liegardiiig the (.resent, Dill, -Mr. Marxbases his first objection on Ihc '•'unjnslness" of relieving the .Waitara district of ils liability for the expiring loan. The position regarding the Waitara district has lieen fully explained, particularly to Mr. Marx, times without number, bill lie apparently cannot, or will not, appreciate the Hoard's eOiilcntion. We are prepared to admit that Waitata's exclusion may be theoretically "unjust," but does anyone suffer to the extent of one penny thereby V Would Mr. Marx s harbor rates be 'decreased by as much as one farthing were Waitara, under the new proposals, still held responsible for its share of interest on the old loan? We challenge Mr. Marx to prove that they would. It may bo news to hiin that while Waitara may be escaping a small share of a security liability, the Waitara ratepayers are not without heavy liability for a harbor. Waitara has ii harbor on which it has borrowed nioncv from the (ioyeriiment.. hut for years has failed to pay interest. .Mr. Marx need not fear that Waitar.i has escaped a harbor rate.

If we could correctly iiiidersland what Mr. Marx means, his' next point i< even more easily eoml.alled. lie states that while the new Loan Hill provides for differential rating, it fails iu recognising (lill'eiemiaL liability. We claim that that is exactly what the l'.ill doc- not fail to do. Differential rating is only; the natural corollary of tlw recognition of the principle of dillerential liability. The liability of Mr. -Marx's district is absolutely limited under the .Hill to the maximum rate that may Ik' collected. As there is scarcely the remotest of possibilities that any rate will ever be required, i-pci hilly in llie district under the third schedule'. (|„. mortgage, as Mr. Hughes fondly expresses it, on the laud is lo all intents and purposes nil.

Assuming for tile purposes „f argument that, the maximum rate pr.nidc.l for were ever collected, would the individual ratepayers be belter or worse, oil' limn miller the present liability and rate'.' Mr. .Marx knows as well as we do that he would almost assuredly save his harbor rate if the new proposals were carried, and the annual value of his farm would be conespondinga'v increased. The supporter, of the lli'll affirm that the ratepayers would be inlinileh heller ..IV under the terms „i the new loan: the section i>J the opposition represented by Mr. .Marx replies that it does not care whether it would or not, and it is against allowing its land to be used as security for any further borrowing. Of course against argument of that kind there is no wasting time, other than to say thai, the farmer who adopled similar methods ill the conduct of his private business would soon cease to interest himself in harbor rates, for someone with a keener business instinct would relieve him of that obligation.

Bcgardiug "doctors differing'' nil the possibility of (lie liuvlmm- being made a deep sea olic, we would merely [mint out to Mr. Marx.that it is not a dill'crence between "ijoctois." bin between "doctors" or eminent engineers and a lavmaii. While we have a strong regard fi. r Mr. Maxwell's opinions, un'such a question as breakwater stability and dredging, \\c prefer |.j aec-pl tin;' opinions of i-xjH-rt engineer,. Ju conclusion, il Mi-fin-- In us that !h<< precedent of the Waitarn Kill of last session is I Hi.- inspiring inilucncc behind Ibe opposition to tin- Harbor Kill. Wert- Mr. Marx Ursiriij" exclusion in order Unit lit' might improve the port that handles "thrcefourths „f thu trade of the llawera ward"—we should like i„ know where it is—we I'ouhl understand and appreciate the vigor lie is jnt'iisiug j„t 0 i,i s campaign. J!ul he has nut," Miind him the claims Waituni was in a position to urge. He (we are speaking impersonally of tlie opposition), although "sympathetic," is not prepared to assist'the Optmakc project. Less likely is he to assist Paten if that port should propose to form a rating urea. Is it, then, that lie is in league with the powerful Wellington inlluence that will hamper, by every means in its power, the developiiient of a main distributing port for Xaranaki ami the West Coast generally'.'