BOARD AND ITS CRITICS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 135, 9 June 1910, Page 7

BOARD AND ITS CRITICS.

MR. ENTKICAN UN HARBOUR MATTERS.

THE KAIPARA MISHAP. -CONTROLLING THE FERRY-SER-VICE. The ratlrer serious charges preferred against the Auckland Harbour Boardby a deputation from the Shipowners' Federation, which waited upon 'the Minister for Marine on Tuesday, were referred to ttris morning by Mr. A- J. Entncan, Chairman of the Board, in the course of an interview with a "Star" reporter. Mr. Entrican, when asked what reply could be made to the assertion that the Tecent increase in charges made by the •Board fell mainly upon shipping interests, said that this statement w«nt far twide of the truth. There had been practically no increase in the charges upon ehiDpins beyond a slight increase m o-egaTd to the cost of docking vessels, and upon the amount levied on ferry etea-mers using the wharves ■within the iharbour. Mr. Entrican <went on to say •that he had not had the necessary time •to secure the correct figures as to what •would accrue to the Board over the adopitkm of the new fey-laws. Neither hod he ihad the time to ascertain for the information of the general public what was the cost.-of the docks and the interest thereon, which" was "being T?aid out of revenue. He believed, however, that -when he went carefully into the matter, !e would find that the net revenue from the docks would not pay more than one, or one and a-half, per cent on the cost of eonstrnction. The Board was therefore 3osin~ abont three per cent in maintaining **d equipping these docks This was (beincr done solely for the benefit of ship•ping Tet the shipowners complained of thetreatment they received at the hands of the Board. He intended at the nest meeting of the Board to make a. statement on the subject, and place the absolute facts before the •public "\no±heT matter I desire to take exception to," continued Mr. Entrican, ' is the action: of members of fche deputation which waited upon the Minister to discussing the existence of the ■Kaipara, Ehoal in Kangitoto Channel, and alleging on the part of the Board in regard to the accident to -the 6.5. Kaiipara. I was more than astonished to find such men as Mr. W. G. Smith (secrctarv of the Shipowners' Federation), Mr. C. V. Houghton (manager of the N-Z. Shipping Co., who may be regarded as plaintiff in the action against the Board for the recovery of £163,000), and Mr. E. W. Alteon (an ex-member of Parliament), all discussing this matter when it is known to "be sub-judice. This is particularly regrettable when it is remenrbered that the jury to hear the case will probaMy t>e selected from Teaders of the local newspapers. lam more than surprised that three gentlemen of experience, such as those named, should frave so far forgotten their ideas of fair play as to try to lead the public to believe that the Harbour Board was both

negligent and to blame. in the matter of the Kaipaxa mishap. In speaking to the Minister as a member of the d_eputa-

tion in question, Mr. Alison is reported to have stated that the grounding of the Kaipara -was -wholly and solely due to neglect on the part of tie Harbour Board to remove a shoal fchat had been known to exist for 20 years, and had been struck by two or three other vessels. If the Board had known of the existence of this shoal for a score of years, as asserted, then the individual members oi the Board must feave been acquainted "with the fact. I find, on looking into past history, that iMr. E. W- AEson was himself a member of the Board for a. period' of four years, (between 1891 and 1895. iMr. Alex. Alison, another member of the deputation -which waited on the Minister, was a member in 1899, 1900, 1903, and 1905. likewise Mr. Houghton -was on the Board from XSSI to 189", and 'Mr. Kneen, a fourth meiriber of the deputation, has

ibeert a, member of the Board since 1906 :

and !Mr. Bradney, who also waited on *he Minister, has been a member since ISO 7. It therefore follows from the statement of Mr. E. W. Alison that these five gentlemen were all aware of the existence of the Kaipara rock during the time that they were members of the Harbour Board. What steps did these gentlemen, take io have this danger to shipping removed? If the Board hae been negligent, these five gentlemen must take their share of the Wame. If Mr. Houghton, as manager of the N.Z. Shipping Co., 'knew of the existence of this rock during the years that he was a member of the Board, wiry did he allow his company's "vessel to go out at low water without warning of this danger ? Mr. Alison also, according to the report of the deputation, avowed that this rock has been struck

iby two or three other vessels. The evidence we have in reports to the Board 23 entirely against this statement, and the evidence adduced at the Kaipara inquiry was entirely contrary to this assertion."

Speaking of the representations of the Shipowners* Federation to the "Minister in regard to the licensing of ferry boats,

Mr. Entriean said he had only one thing

ito say-on behalf of the Board , . For years there lad teen complaints from the people using the ferry steamers on the northern chore of the harbour. The Harbours Act distinctly placed the responsibility upon the Board in regard do the issue -of licenses to these vessels. The by-laws now 'being disallowed by the Department have been in force for the last 20 years, and the new by-laws -were an exact copy of those previously enacted >by *he Board. The solicitors of the Board had on more than one occasion advised the Board that tbey had the reeponsiMlity and the right to refuse licenses if the boats did not provide up-to-date equipment, such as proper shelter for passengers, correct sanitary and ventilation arrangements, adequate provision for coping -with th-e smut nuisance, and so on. The Board only 'wanted to know its position, and was perfectly satisfied ito allow the Marine Department to take control, provided that it also accepted the responsibility when it licensed these vessels. They also wanted the general public to clearly understand that the Marine Department was relieving them of this responsibility. The Minister had 1 promised to make this perfectly clear in his HaTbour Board .Amendment Act of nest session, and the Board would conEequentlv alter its by-laws so as to bring about a position of affairs in accordance with the statement of. the Minister. Mr Entrican further pointed out, in regard to Mr Houghton's statement, that the New Zealand Shipping Company was ibeing charged '£3,500 in extra docking dues, that the Company had not paid that amount. All that 'had lieen done hy the Company -was to give a bond that it. -would be paid when demanded, and in the meantime they -were requesting ths ißoaTd to forgo the payment. Furthermore, in regard to "the statements made : to the Hon. Mr. Millar about the need for siips, it was surprising that the* dei pntation had not stated thai the Board * .fp^^o^dd^.ioartt.fo^twfltjdJT^oii^aiß

■western portion -of the Freeman's Bay ■breakwater, and had also offered for auction sections on the western slope suitable for ship-builders and boat-buil-ders. These sites had been hung up for six months at the request of the builders, in order that better approaches might be provided in the meantime.

In connection <with tie report of the deputation of shipowners which waited on the Minister jVIt Hoogihton -was reported to -have said that the shipping interests were only represented on the Board .by Messrs. BTadney and Kneen. Mr Houghton mentioned an additional name in this respect—that of Mr H. D. Heather.