THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1892. THE STORY OF THE SHINGLE QUESTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2351, 3 May 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1892. THE STORY OF THE SHINGLE QUESTION.

In a recent issue we dwelt on the unfair and dishonest method the majority of the Harbor Board adopted with the view of bringing the minority into contempt. We did not, however, exhaust the controversy. The minority asserted that the majority misrepresented facts, and circulated untrue reports, in order to carry their point. This, is a very serious accusation to make against men in a public position, and should not be made without having good grounds for it. It is a very serious matter to say that seven members of the Harbor Board conspired with the Board’s officers to produce false reports, so as to deceive the ratepayers and frighten them into compliance with their own view. Let us examine the evidence on which the minority base this accusation, and this we can best do by tracing the history of the shingle shifting question. This originated at a private meeting of the Board, probably about eighteen months ago. Mr Teschemaker brought the matter up, a private meeting was held, and the Board’s engineer was instructed to report. The Board at the time was greatly blamed for holding a private meeting, as by doing so they caused people to feel alarmed, and unfavorable comments appeared in various 1 papers in consequence of their action. This certainly damaged the harbor. The ■ result of the private conclave was that Mr Marchant recommended that the shingle should be shifted, and asked for authority to experiment in that way. His request was refused, and Messrs O’Connor and Goodall were appointed to report on the matter. Several members assert now that they were opposed to shingle shifting in the beginning. That is true. They opposed it until Messrs O’Connor and Goodall recommended it, but not afterwards. Messrs O’Connor and Goodall confirmed Mr Marchant’s recommendation, and Messrs Napier Bell and Wilson also gave their imprimatur to it. Up to this time not a single word was uttered concerning the denudation of the Seadown beach. To strengthen their arguments in favor of shifting the shingle, the engineers asserted that property along the Seadown beach would be washed away if the shingle were not shifted, but as their commission embraced no such question people became curious to know what led them to introduce the subject at all. The minority of the Board allege that the engineers were put up to it; but there is no evidence of this, and, as we wish to be perfectly impartial, the accusation appears to bo unfair. Be that as it may, the engineers recommended a plant which would cost £18,700, the working of which would involve an expenditure of £4OOO a year. At the next meeting Mr Gibson moved, and Mr Morris seconded, a resolution to the effect that the Standing Committee carry out the recommendations of the engineers, but owing to the opposition of Messrs Stumbles, Hill, and Flatman, it was decided to get Mr Napier Bell to report. Messrs Acton, Morris, Manchester, Gibson, and Woollcombe favored going 'on with the work at once, and Messrs Hill, Stumbles, Flatman and Talbot favored getting Mr Napier Bell to report. Let this be remembered— Only for the opposition of the minority the plant would have been obtained by this time. Mr Napier Bell confirmed the previous proposals, but meantime the ratepayers began to express dissent, and the Levels Road Board sent in a formal protest. The Board then began to shift their position instead of the shingle. They determined on getting the engineer to experiment, so as to see whether the shingle could be shifted, and in this way spent about £IOOO. The engineers told them that they could shift the shingle with machinery, but that was not enough, they must see it shifted. They had not as much confidence in engineers then as they have now. The only object they had in this experiment was to throw dust in the people’s eyes, as is proved by their reply to the Levels Road Board, in which they said they were not going to buy expensive machinery at all, and on this experiment they spent about £IOOO. The experiment proved successful, as any fool could have foreseen, and then the Board called on their engineer to / prepare plans and specifications for a plant for shifting shingle. The indignation of the ratepayers began to find expression ip petitions, requisitions, and public meetings, and then the majority of the Board discovered that it was not a shingle-shifting apparatus they wanted, but a dredge. The harbor was filling up with silt, and their dredge was not equal to removing it. They also discovered that though the top of the shingle had gone out only fifty feet, the bottom, that is what could not be seen, had gone out - feet. The minority say they do not aud we hold they are jusbeiieve w Let US now summarise tilled in doing so.

the position: — Ist—The cx-y was the shingle overlapping the kant, but as that cry was not strong enough the denudation of the Seadown beach crept in by sopxe ppcult means. That bubble burst. 2nd—The experiment with the Priestman gi-ab to see if the shingle could be shifted cost £IOOO. Being a success, it makes .a good excuse for going on. 3rd—The harbor silting up. Dredge not good enough; must have a new dredge. Mr Hill showed that the dredge which was pronounced not good enough had only worked 73 days—that is, one fourth her time —last year, yet the soundings taken and recorded in the office book showed that in some places the harbor was at the present time one foot deeper than it was two years ago. The silt bogie was thus burst. If the vessel put in her full time she could keep the hai’bor clean. 4th—The shingle at the bottom of the sea had gone out 150 feet last year, while the shingle on the top, where it could bo seen, had gone out ouly 50 feet. We cannot refute this, but xve presume people

will believe or doubt it according to their prejudices. The latest developemeut is a combination sort of an apparatus, which will tow vessels, dredge, and shift shingle, but as she cannot do more than one thing at a time something must be left undone. This is a further shift to deceive tire public. Mr Talbot said the more recent proposals had been developed. Quite right. They have been developed by the men who came out in the time of excitement. Only for the men who came forward in the time of excitement this district would have been saddled with the proposals of the engineers now. The question is asked How is it that the majority will not submit to public opinion ? Simply because they are too conceited to give in, and because they are thorough tyrants at heart. Just think what they would be if they had despotic power. They are certainly dangerous men; they are not fit for public positions and ought not be trusted with them. There is sufficient, plain, and palpable evidence to show they are endeavouring to deceive the ratepayers by misrepresentations, and that is an unpardonable offence. We have given them credit for being prompted by honorable intentions, but when we find them shifting their position and making fresh proposals, and contradictory statements at each meeting, we are irresistibly led to the conclusion that selfconceit is their ruling passion, and that they are going on now merely because they will not allow that they are beaten.