DEPUTATIONS.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2159, 4 December 1875, Page 2

DEPUTATIONS.

TAKARU WHABF.

A large and influencial deputation consisting of His Worship the Mayor, Messrs Graham, Gillespie, Bleard, Brown, -Stejinit.-J^ardell, -Rojyg^Wilson, MoCullough, Thorburn, EhrenFricd, Be'sF," Bullock, Williams, and Melhose; waited on His Honor the Superintendent this morning with a view to getting the Tararxi Wharf repaired. :

The deputation wa3 introduced by the Mayor who said that doubtless it would be in the recollection of His Honor that a part of Tararu Wharf had been washed away, and that they had before asked that it be repaired. There were at the time, however, no funds available, 'i his loss of the wharf they had found to be a great drawback. Steamers could only come to the Thames at-certain times on account of the tides, and not only were there times often very inconvenient, but their sometimes had communication with Auckland only every alternate day, and sometimes only every third day. They greatly felt the loss .of the wharf, and so did the people at Auckland who ■ were compelled to start at inconvenient hours so as to be here in time to suit the tides.'

Mr Brown said that in all likelihood if the Waikato. railway .was made, as lie supposed it would be some day, tb'at^ Tararu would be the terminus'of the line.* They had already a line from Grahamstown to Tararu, and the-Tararu Wharf end was a very substantial structure, -whereas the Gxauamstown wharf was unsuitable for a line of rails, being four feet too low. ■

The Mayor said that although it was a private wharf a public benefit was derived from it.

Mr McLaren thought il would be of no use repairing it as the first gale would

carry it away. No' estimates had been made for a new wharf.. ■ 'Jhe piles were old and could'not stand. '

Mr Graham said in the early days of .tbejfield it was the only place for steamers to come to as they could get alongside at *ny tide; but the wharf has since .been neglected. He suggested a .gangway be erected 3 or 4 feet higher; at a probable cost of £6000 or. £7000. Were the foreshore banded over the wharf would be erected.' Many persona who would visit the Thames were prevented from doing sp from the irregularity of the .steamers., „„. , , ,„. - Sir George enquired of Mr McLaren If it were practicable to erect a gangway and the possible cosfc. Mr McLaren said one could be erected but the cost of it and the necessary repairs would be almost equal to a new structure.

Mr Graham remarked that the cost of repairs to Curtis' wharf was £1 per foot. 1 Sir George asked if the Mayor and Corporation could not assist. The Mayor replied that- they could-not, they had roads to. make and repair and thai, at present their bankiog account was everdrawn., Were the foreihore handed ow the first work they would do would oe^b provide wharf accommodation. Mr Rowe said what was wanted was certainty of communication with Auckland—such a large community as that of the Thames demand's it. He also thought temporary accommodation could be ■made.'': l- * '«■"''-" .-• ..&. I: \ 'h".~ Sir GeorgeWcl UMti? strongly that the most important thing wanted here is .ready communication with Auckland, for eren since he had b?en Superintendent he had noticed a great falling off in that respect, whether the" fault lay in the steamers or insu^cient wharf accommodation he\did not know. .. Mr McLaren thought a point should be strained, and the difference obtained to enable a good wharf to be erected. i Mr Brown said he Jbad attended various deputations on the same subject before, and they-had waited,on SirJ. Vogel, the late ' Superintendent,'and the present Premier, when they lad always got, the same answer, that was, that a competent marine surveyor should be employed to decide the best side ftp a wharf, and .he urged Sir G,eorge to^o so n0w.,., •' J Sir George thought the Mayor and Councillors were verp indolent, they.were the proper ones to-look to: At Timaru the council there had carried out very ex« tensive harbor works* they had applied to Sir John Coote for-plans which he had furnished, and he recommended them to do the same. They should get up a/ meeting at once and petition for the foreshore to be handed over without further delay, and he Would back it up ai'faraa lay in his power,;for he thought no place could better repay for public works than the Thames. The Mayor repudiated the idea of the Council's indolence. ; He said if the fore--1 shore had been handed over as promised year "after year all the necessary works would be done without having to beg for paltry repairs to.a wharf, i Sir George assured him the foreshore was about to be handed OTer. The works done at Timaru were the result of the, energy of the Council there. , . Mr Ehrenfried said the reason was Timaru was better represented in Parliament than the Thames.

Sir George again advised a meeting to be held immediately and a petition to be forwarded which! he would back up. Mr Rowe thought the Council ought not to be chained with having been dilatory, for they had always sought, but the promises made had not been fulfilled. The Goldfieldsj Revenue did no good for it was not ijpent/here. The public had great burdens to bear and it was no use for the Council to enter into plans which they were unable to carry out. They had asked for bread and received a stone.

Sir George said Mr Rowe had made a mistake, all the gold revenue would be spent either at the Thames or at Coromandel. He could inform them' that £12,800 was the amount to be spent, and the question was to decide the best way of spending it. He again urged that application be made for plans to be drawn odb by Sir John Coote. The Mayor said they would leave tho matter in his Honor's hands and the de« putation after thanking Sir George withdrew. ' ,