RECLAIMING FREEMAN'S BAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 147, 22 June 1888, Page 3

RECLAIMING FREEMAN'S BAY.

TflE AUCKLAND HARBOUR IM

PROVEMENT BILL.

It will be interesting to your readers to learn that this measure passed its second reading yesterday afternoon. There ap-. pearecfa probability that it would -meet the fate of all other Harbour Improvement Bills and be stone-walled by tho Young flew Zealand party, but the party was only represented in the House by Mr Rhodes, and he seldom or never speaks He offered a-few deprecatory remarks, and the impression given to listeners was that the party would have something to say w hen the Bill reached the Committee stage. Jlrjl'eacock moved the second reading of ' theJßiil, and in doing so said it is intended to give-effect to two things. The first of theseisstated in the preamble to the Bill. The Harbour Board were empowered by the Act of 1886 to reclaim a bay to the west of the business part of the city called .Freeman's Bay, bub some difficulties arose with regard to the taking away of riparian rights of some owners of properties on the 'irestern side of the bay. The matter was ;arranged by the Board agreeing to makea ■ fitreeb to front of these properties on the reclaimed land, and this Bill is required to enable the Board to convey such'small pieces of land as may bo necessary togive a frontage, also to empower the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland to convey some land at the Point to enable the street to run straight through the water. In exchange for this land the Board is cinpflvered to convey back to him. some pieces of land which ib is pro-' posed to reclaim. Tire -parties agreed on these points, and the Bill is only, to give the necessary power to complete the arrangement. The other object is contained in Clause 11. Under the Harbour iloan Act of 1886 there is a schedule of the 'works to which money was proposed to be devoted. Amongst these there is tie sum of twenty-six thousand pounds lor .railway wharf, sheds, etc., and also for Hobson-street "wharf, sheds, etc.","sixty thousand pounds. Mr Peacock reminded webera that in the schedule to the \ij. Bill .the.allocation.must) be „ someM rough' in its' character,""ami" in Ms/case it has been found desirable to ask the House to allow it to be changed by withdrawing £16,000 from the first named item, and £10,000 from the second, or £26,000 in all, for the purpose of completing the fittings at Calliope Dock. Members were aware that a dock of very large Simtinsions was recently opened by two of.the vessels of Her Majesty's fleet, befog docked. About that time the Admiral requested the Chief Engineer of the Australian .Squadron to report upon the dock, and he recommended as necessary for its proper efficiency that workshops should be erected containing furnaces, steamhammer, lathes, planing machines, and 'oter appliances, with a view to repairing ,auqh v&Bsels as might use the dock the money intended to be spent for this purpose. Keverbingto the first part of the Bill, it will be seen that clause 4 enabled the Harbour Board to convey a small portion of the land, and clause 5 enables the Bishop to convey to the Board the land necessary, and clause 6 empowers the Board to convey certain portions back to the Bishop. The Bill had been passed bythe Local Bills Committee, anti was believed to be in order.

The Hod. G. Fisher objected to the principle of diverting money raised for one object to a different purpose altogether, although he did riot object to the purpose for which the money was to lie applied. He admitted that weight must be given to the opinion of the Admiral of the Squadron that certain further expenditure was necessary before the harboar would get the full benefit of the possession of the dock.

Mr Rhodes said members had not yet .had time to consider the measure, and it appeared to him that the diversion clause fas really much worse than a fresh borrowfogclause. Mr D. Goldie urged that it would be a nistake to refuse to pass this Bill on the ground, alleged. Debenture - holders had advanced the money for harbour works fenei-ally, and not for any particular ""A. It was necessary that these Wrkfhops should be on the ground, and these requirements having been overlooked fieh the loan was raised, the Board had J° other means with which to supply the deficiency. He thought it would be better to divert this money than have to borrow more. Mr Samuel expressed the opinion that Auckland members would readily affirm that it was unsound and vicious to divert jaoney raised for specified purposes to dif- | cr ?nt purposes altogether when they had J 0 face it in connection with the North Island Trunk .Railway Loan. ,Mr Peacock, in reply, held that the prin"Pie dH not apply in this case. There. *as no diversion in such a sense, as the •aoney was raised for harbour works and *°ul(l be spent on harbour works. The J 866 .would be different if it were proposed 10 divert a harbour loan to municipaLpurP°ses. The second reading of the Bill was on the voices.