The Daily News WEDNESDAY, JULY 1. THE HARBOUR BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 163, 1 July 1908, Page 2

The Daily News WEDNESDAY, JULY 1. THE HARBOUR BILL.

Probably the must fruitful meeting yet | hold in connection with the Now Plymouth Harbor Bill eventuated at Manilla on Monday night, and ii would appear front llie report which we publish in Litis Usiie liuil much of tlu* opposition oil the Plains lu tlu l Hill Ims lieen disarmed, at least, so far as opposition to tin: proposals hefoiv I'arlinniem are concerne.l. Mr. .Marx, who availed himself of llw opportunity to reply to Mr. Maxwell, ailopli'd a more reasonable attitude than has characterised his d-'liv-erances at recent meetings in the district., and conlined himselt tu the defects in the JMil as they presented themselves to the section of the opposition he represented. Had Air. Marx conlined his previous criticism of the Hill t«j the alleged d '• focts he mentioned at Mauaia, and not have entered oil a campaign of misrepresentation, unintentional perhaps, his objections might have been met and remedies conceded long ago. Of course.. .Mr. Marx still questions the value of the Hoard's port revenue earmarked for interest, and doubts the sul'lieiency of the

sinking-fund provisions, ilis doubts arc no longer positive, however, and he merely reads from the Bill dill'ereni conclusions to its supporters, lie expresses a fear khal. should the harbor revenue fail to produce £-I.3UU set aside under the Kill to meet interest charges, the ratepayers might be called upon to make up the dillereiiec. It is a feeble argument, for .Mr. Marx, as a member of the Board, and knowing full well the intentions of the members, should have seen that the provision was to his satisfaction. As a matter of fact, however, the provision is mandatory, and under no possible circumstance could the ratepayers ever be called upon to pay more than the difference between the specially earmarked sources of revenue land fund XIOOO (or X-toUU revenue)—and lhe LoUil interest charges. That amount cannot cxeeell and under the dill'ei'cntial rating proposals would not' be worth collecting in the district south of Stratford. Regarding the sinking ' fund, Mr. Marx must he deliberately closing his eyes to the fact that laud vaiues and bind settlement in lantmiki are increasing apace, and that the Harbor Board's share from the acres of Crown land available must quickly reach an amount that wiJI leave a surplus after the payment of interest.

Regarding Mr. Marx's more salient objections, however, we do not anticipate there will be any trouble iu meeting his wishes, which are perfectly reasonable, and have, iu part, already been assented to by the Board.'although not included in the Mill. Mr. Marx desires anexprcss stipulation in the Bill exempting the southern district from further loans, and we see 110 objections to such a clause being embodied in the Hill, the principle having already been alliriued by the Hoard? Equally there should not be any serious objection to readjustment el ward representation, but whether on t!ie basis of valuation or not we are not prepared at the moment to say. It-at any future time Mew Plymouth and district were to saddle itself with a Inrthei lofll to cope with the growing demands of the port (and assuming the southern district were to he exempt from further liability), it would not lie untair Unit the distiict carrying the heavier liability should have proportionate representation. We have 110 doubt, however, that a scheme of ward readjustment could be amicably arranged ami embodied in the liill.

It W:IS only fair thai Mr. Maxwell should have shown the ratepayers the position they would be in were tin l present proposals rejected. and in this col!!l( cli'il'U is interesting to obsene, notwith-

standing ilu* doubts of our eonU'inporaries <ni tlif point, that tin 1 position a> m-enltv <iet'ni<-d hv u>. and upon by Mr. Maxwell at the was not (juestioned by even Mv. Marx. Wo were perfectly aware that wc >d;ilt»tl the extreme poMlhui when \vi l pointed out thai the' Hoard mi.uiil divert th" whole oi' the html land revenue U> tin' pavment of on any oi its'loans it than one!. We are confident tlio Jtoanl has tlu l discretionary power, unhampered b« anv nitric!ions under any Act at pi<sent in rxist«-mr. to readjust the allocation of its land fund ' in nnvnu-uts. y\r. Maxwcdl say? the most llu. Tmard would vaist. 1 a Vi'fOiul loan if tin* prosont proposals are rtjei-U'd) could expect would he half th-j* land fund. Mi. Marx is of opinion tlmt (he CIoO.OiKI of (ho expirin" lt>au shoiiljl he reborrowed, utilising tlw wlioh; uf the Jand fund, and a new h»nn should he raised hv •0* -innllcr area (New IMynioutli .jmi disirieU. presumably without artist mice I'nuii laud fund. Whilo stu-h a proposal would have 110 ehaiiee ol acceptance. Mr. Marx did well to propose il. if for no other reason (lutn thai it narrowed the issue between Mr. jiud Mr. Marx in a simple issue for t w consideration of 0"' ratepayers. Mr. Maxwell assiin ; d ihem Unit '•ininiediaieiv after the Bill is carried they will have Jot their linal rate notice," while Mr. Mavx advised the renewal the old loan, with a perpetual ratr and no provision for its extinction.