CORRESPONDENCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXV, Issue 9123, 24 April 1915, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

LYTTELTON HARBOUR "MANAGEMENT.

To i-Kis Emr&n "' Guajusian."

Sir, —As Mr Hugo Friedlander's speech, as reported in your issue of yesterday, repeats misstatements often before made by anti-canalites "that the oanal would impose heavy burdens on the community," I have again to deny their accuracy.

Mr Friedlander knows well that the Lyttelton Harbour Board has no power to levy rates on property, and that the canal advocates, in speaking and writing about, it being possibly /.necessary,' -to-i pledge" a "rate,-, to" give a*: giltedged security for a loan, never contemplated extending the area for rating within 30 or 40 miles of. Ashburton. His statement' that ii Greater Ghristchurch- succeeded in

getting a majority on the Harbour Board it might possibly reduce the( harbour charges on imports and increase them on exports, is an assumption for-which he has no justification if ho moans that in doing so the cost to the producer -would, be increased, taking into account the. railway imposts that the producer now -has 'to pay., The majority on the Board, of which Mr Friedlandor is one, have been trying to delude the people that; Lyttelton is a cheap port. As a matter of fact, I believe that, in consequence of these railway imposts, it is the dearest in the Dominion. In my published criticism it is shown that instead of the canal to 'Ghristchurch increasing the I cost of conveying goods between the port and the plains it -would,-.as certified by four certificated I';.-accountant,*, reduce the. cost by 23 per cent: When discussing the canal question in the i Harbour Board in 1912. Mr Friedlander said he would debate the question wth me on a Christchurch. platform. To this I promptly agreed, and although he has been reminded of the incident I am still waiting for an arrangement to be made for the debate to come off.

Mr Friedlander, in accusing the Minority Committee of the board of insincerity in advocating a 50-aere basin at Linwood, ignores the fact that for many years the harbour of 107 acres at Lyttelton would continue to be used, at any rate for some years, for certain classes of trado and pleasure, and that Mr Cyrus Williams, who suggested the basin of 50 acres, only- suggested it as a first instalment to be ultimately extended ■ as-required to 176 acres. Is Mr. Friedlander sincere when ho. ignores such a fact, and that .the reduction of area would save £200.000, and when he quote,s_ the estimated cost of: the larger basin in his endeavour, to-make it appear that the canal would bo a burden to thp community? Even if such a canal did cost, os he says it' .would, £24.0.00 a year more than the then entire revenue of the Harbour Board, the saving by avoiding the railway would recoup thp owners of goods conveyed -between the riort and the city and leave-them a handsome profit.

Mr Fn>dJ«nder seems to think -that he find Mr Mooro are entitled to credit for having spent" £1.72. ■'97- on permanent works since 1909. That sum alone would have -constructed works which would hove enabled all coaj-y timber, livo stock, and other produce '■'to come ■up the estuary. The £264,497 ■ that he says has been spent is more' than a fourth of Mr Williams's estimate for a canal Avith a basin of 176 acres.. Most of this money has been spent- in defiance of protests of representative persons in Greater Christchurch,/ apparently for tho purpose of prejudicing the canal; the -effect being that even Mr Friexllander acknowledges that th; new piers and jetties (which,; by the way, will cost cosidera.biy--.more before they arc completed) will be to cope with requirements';'of. the•.-port for the next 20 or 30 years." In doing so he also indirectly admits having wasted public money-by spending it before it is necessary, and it is. also obvious that the expenditure has been made to restrict the. aspirations of the people of Christchurch'• to get a port that, will give better facilities for trade and,- the expansion of our industries.

The Ohairriian of the- Tima.ru Harbour Board was about right when ha said a fow months ago that Timaru Had . two members on 'the Lytteltosi Harbour Board. I may add that the Waimakariri Harbour Board ha?, two more., all apparently determined ! to obstruct the advancement of Christchurch.' CHAS. ALLISON. ; April 22, 1915.