THE HARBOUR BOARD BILL.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13523, 3 November 1911, Page 8

THE HARBOUR BOARD BILL.

ATTITUDE OF THE OBJECTORS. Mr. W. J. Poison States His Case. Wanganui County Council Discussion. At the monthly meeting of the Wanganui County Council yesterday, Cr.AV. J. Poison, who was the leader of the opposition to the Wanganui Harbour Loan Bill 'when it was before the Local Bills Committee of the House recently, repotted on the result of the County’s opposition to the measure. .Shortly before the commencement of the meeting the accounts were submitted for payment. One item, “C.F. Millward. expenses to Wellington, £10,” gave rise to the. following discussion: .Cr F. H. ALLEN—Why should the county be called upon to pay this account*? ~ Cr W. J. POLSON—The account is in connection with Mr Millward’s evidence before the Local Bills Committee when the Harbour Board Empowering Bill was being considered. • Cr ALLEN—I don’t see why the ratepayers’ money should be spent on iCr POLSON (interrupting)—l move that the Council go into committee to discuss this matter. I will report shortly as to what was done in Wellington, but there is no need for this account to be discussed in public. Cr ALLEN—I object to anything I have to say being taken in committee. Of course, I know Mr Millward has to he paid, but I don’t see why we should pay it.

Cr McGregor then seconded Cr Poison's motion, and the Council went into committee. On resuming it was reported that the account had been passed. . In the course of his remarks, Mr Poison said that two .or three months ago the Council had decided to set up a committee to oppose the Harbour Board’s measure. Messrs Higgie. Fletcher, and himself had been appointed to that committee, and were given full power to act. They had gone to a great deal" of trouble in collecting evidence against the Bill, and had also promoted a petition amongst the county ratepayers in opposition to the measure, and the ultimate result of their labours was the taking of the matter before the Local Bills Committee of the House. They had called evidence in support of the following clauses; 1. That there is insufficient trade at the port to warrant such a scheme. 2. That-the country will derive no compensating advantages, whatever the cost may be. 3. That the result would mean the collection of a rate. 4. That the work cannot be carried out for the money provided for in the Bill. 5. That former engineers have cast doubts upon the feasibility of the scheme, and that Mr Holmes, Engineer for the Marine Department, suggests that the plan is ill-conceived, the material faulty, and the results not beyond doubt, and the-cost far greater than a quarter of a million. 6. That the present scheme is opposed in engineering theory to Mr Reynolds’ own former scheme. 7. That the boundaries laid down in the Bill are grossly unfair. 8. That to proceed with the Bill is a breach of faith on the part of the Wan-

ganui Harbour Board with the electors. 9. That the county’s petition is signed by a substantial majority of the ratepayers. In reference to the last clause, Mr Poi-

son stated that the legislation of the country provided for separate polls being taken in the different local bodies on matters of this sort, and the committee had been in favour of this being done in this instance. When they went to Wellington they had all the Committee against them, and their opposition was greeted as a usual one of “farmers’ complaints.’’ They, however, put their case, and had a very, uphill fight. Their case was so stroc g that they wore able to prove conclusively the whole nine of the clauses, any one of which he contended was strong enough to oppose the Bill. Ho had convinced the Committee that their case was such a strong ope that the Bill ought not to he proceeded with in its present form, and they had concurred in this and had put into the Bill a clause providing that a poll should he ' taken in each local body’s district. This'is what they bad asked for in the last- of their tabulated clauses. When the Committee had finished with the Bill. it was so amended as to be hardly recognisable. The chairman of the Committee (Mr Laurenson), who had at first opposed the -Bill, later changed over to their side. There had been a-great deal of unscrupulous mendacity by one of the Wanganui papers in connection with his conduct in reference to the Bill and the members giving evidence when the measure was in Coihriiittee. That paper’s information had, been obtained from some contemptiblesource, aud on the strength of this made statements that were absolutely false. There had been no stonewall by those opposed to the Bill, and they did not cross-examine to the same extent as those who -supported the Bill did. In their evidence, also, they did not waste the time.of the Committee, as their evidence did half the time of the other side’s. They had not gone down to stonewall the measure, but to lay their case before the Committee in a fair and proper - manner. No doubt the Bill was brought down too late in the session. If there wne any delay if was due partly to the other side’s evidence being too tedious aud reiterative. It had been suggested by articles iu the Wanganui Press that Mr Hogan was to blame for not getting the Bill through. As far as he was able to gather this was not correct, for Hogan, he thought,- was prepared tp effect a compromise, but that the town members of the Harbour Board met and would not agree to such a course. Cr FLETCHER—That was correct, the chairman of the Board had told him so Cr POLSON—The Harbour Board had not approached the county on tue matter, and yet those who favoured the Bill su'd that the county should approach the county. He was very sorry that a compromise .had not been arranged, and he was sure that if a meeting had been arranged, although it might not have been satisfactory to both parties, free discussion of the matter might have enabled the Harbour Board to proceed with a somewhat modified scheme for the improvement of the port. In conclusion, lie wished to congratulate the witnesses lor the county on the excellent way they had given their evidence, as it was mainly owing to this that their case was so successful. Cr BIGGIE said that when he returned from Wellington and saw the article referred to by Cr Poison iu the Chronicle it surprised him, and he was very surprised, that he had not seen an apology for the statements made. In reference, to the alleged waste of time by his side, he had taken the time occupied by the different people concerned over Mr Holmes’s (Government engineer) cross-examination. The times were—Poison 5 minutes, Murray 15 minutes, Reynolds 10 minutes, Reynolds again 3 minutes, Bassett 2 minutes, and Poison again 4 minutes. It would thus he seen on the one witness alone that Mr Poison had occupied nine minutes of the committee’s time, and the other side 30 minutes. This was how the time was spent. After the first day’s hearing one of the members of the committee (Mr Brown, M.P. for Napier), who had shown very much opposition to their side game up to Mr Poison aud congratulated

him on the way he: had put his case, and asked him if he were a solicitor. Mr Brown was very surprised indeed to find that he was only a “mere farmer.” He thought that the county and the farmers were under a groat deot of gratitude to Mr Poison, for the efforts-ho had made oil their behalf, and he was very sorry to see the tactics by which the papers had. attempted to gain their ends. Cr FLETCHER endorsed the remarks of the. other speakers. He thought it extraordinary that while the deliberations on the Bill were being taken in committee such .statements had appeared in the Wanganui Chronicle. The information had mostly likely come from those that were, supporting the Bill, and was probably given by someone on that side, or it would never have come out. Cr Poison was deserving of a great deal of thanks for the able manner he had carried out his duties. Cr BURNETT said that it. had been stated that those in favour of the : Bill had given away information. He was there as one of the supporters of the Bill, and he, personally, or any other member of his side, as far as he was aware, had given out auy-informacion of what resulted in committee. Cr POLSON—I am very glad to hear you say so. Cr BURNETT—It may have leaked out and come to the newspapers through the man in the street. In referenpe to the suggested compromise, he did not think it possible for the Harbour Board to approach the County Council after the latter had passed a resolution to exclude all the county from the proposed rating area. He contended that part of the Wanganui County should he included in the rating area. Though the Bill was stopped at present it would he through next session with part of the Waimarino County included in the area. If there was a proposal to tax the air, he was sure that the county would oppose it. Cr POLSON—-I should think so. Cr ALLEN agreed that the rating area was not equitable. Hr thought that portions only of the Wanganui, Waitotara, Raugitikei, and Waimarino Counties should he included. The Harbour Board had created a /ireach of faith in not calling in outside expert advice on the scheme. He was in favour of an improved harbour, and he wanted to see the town progress. Members—Hear, hear ! Cr McGREGOR said that in playing to both town and country tire Harbour Bill had fallen between two stools. The County Council’s committee were to be congratulated on the stand they had taken in the matter. Cr POLSON, in the course of his reply, said that if ho was convinced that the harbour would bo a success, that the coswould be what is estimated, and that the rating area was a fair one, he would personally support it, although at the same time knowing he was throwing his money nvva” Both Mr Reynolds' schemes differed on the main points, so something must be wrong- with one of them. He was satisfied tha- if it was possible to get an engineer of status who was satisfied that the harbour would pay, and a better rating area was described, the Bill would meet with much better support. After further dealing with the scheme, he moved that his report be adopted. This was seconded bv Cr Higgle and carried unanimously.