THE GOVERNOR AND THE HARBOUR BOARD.

Evening Post, Volume LVIII, Issue 72, 22 September 1899, Page 5

THE GOVERNOR AND THE HARBOUR BOARD.

♦_ SOME INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. The c orrespoudenee which pasted bptween the Governor and the Harbour Board in reference to the stoppage of His Excellency's carriage at the entrance to tho Queen's Whurf last month was of un interebling chaiacter. On tho 25th August Captain Alexander, Private (Secretary to His Excellency, wrote as follows to tho Secretary of the Board : —"I am directed by His Excellency the Governor to draw your attention to ihe fact that his carriage was not permitted to go on the wharf to moot the Rototnuliana this morning. His guests arriving by that steamer had therefore to w alk from the boat to the road. His Excellency would be glad if enquiries could be made in the- matter." On tho some day tho Board's Secretary (Mr. W. Ferguson) sent a reply, in which ho said: — "I find on enquiry that it is true that there has been some delay in permitting the carriage to enter upon the wharf, tinder the Board's bylaws only a certain number of passenger vehicles are permitted on tho wharf at any one time, and tho maximum number had been allowed to go down when His Excellency's carriage drew up at tho wharf. Tbe carriage was stopped by the constable on duty, who at onco referred the matter to tho chief tolls clerk, but the footman, without waiting the result 'of the conferonco, proceeded down the wharf, leaving tho vehicle standing at the wharf approach. The coachman was told that ho might take the carriage down, but he declined to do so, stating that the matter would be reported to you. I regret that any misunderstanding should have occurred in the matter, but at the same time I cannot blame tho Board's officers for strictly carrying out their duty, two points being in question oivthis occasion — first as to whether tho vehicle should be permitted on the wharf until one of those previously allowed down had left, and, secondly, as to whether a toll of sixpence should not bo charged. I may mention thai no f.ilisfactory reply was received from His Excellency's servants as to wb.eth.fr the vehicle was proceeding on the wharf to meet any person travelling on public ser- • vice, that being tho only ground under which exemption from the toll is provided *nder the Harbours Act. To provent this difficulty arising again, I have > given instructions to the toll clerks and constables that, in future, if the state of the traffic on the wharf should warrant it, they are to permit His Excellency's carriages, when driven by servants in distinctive uniforms, to enter upon, the wharf without hindrance and without paying toll." On the 26th ultimo the Governor's Private Secretary sent another letter, im which ho Said:— "l am directed by His Excel- • lency to ask whether his carriages are at any time to be allowed on the wharf, or not. By the last paragraph of your letter there would still appear to be some doubt on this subject The question of pay- , mont of toll is not being raised. His Excellency desires that this correspondence should be laid before the Board at its next meeting." Mr. Ferguson replied:— "l shall have pleasure in laying the correspondence before 'the Board at its next meeting, after which I hope to communicate again ta you." liJ the course of the discussion at the meeting of tho Board yesterday, Mr. Geo. . Fisher, M.H.R., said tho matter had already been before Parliament. In the House he had mentioned two or three corresponding cases. On ono occasion Lord Palmerstaß was smoking a cigar on the platform of an English railway btation. A guard or porter went up to His Lordship and asked him to put out his cigar, as smoking on the platform was against tho regulations. Lord Palmerston promptly complied with tho request, and commended- the 1 man for carrying out the regulations. The official afterwards found out who it was to whom ho had been speaking, and going up to His Lordship again ho apologised for having asked him to put out his cigar. Lord Palmerston was so dis;gustedftt tho man's sycophancy that ho took some pains to get him dismissed. • Another case reported in the London Standard of recent date was analogous. In that instance a sentry had refused to aHow the carriage of Lord Russell, C.J., on its way to the law courts to pa«s through an archway leading from the Horse Guards parade ground to St. James's Park without production of an order, and when the coachman persisted tiie sentry seized the horses' heads and blocked progress until he received an order from his superior officer to let the carriage pass. In each of the two oases he had quoted the men in charge had simply dona their duty, and he (.Mr. Fisher) agreed that in the case of the stoppage of Lord Ranfurly's carriage tho officer had merely carried out the regulations. As stated in our issue of yesterday, tho j Board approved of tho reply sent by thos Secretary on the 25th ult.. and decided!* , that it had no comment to make on tho . case.