THE HARBOUR PROBLEM

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13161, 7 July 1908, Page 10

THE HARBOUR PROBLEM

DISCUSSION ON THE CANAL

KEPORTS

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HAR-

BOUR BOARD

A special meeting of the Lyttelton Harbour Board Mas held yesterday for the purpo .c of further considering harbour extension proposals reported upon by Messrs Coode, Son, and Matthews. There were present: —Messrs G. Laurenson, M.P. (chairman). J. Richardson, H. FViedlander, R. Moore, D. Buddo, M.P., 11. Pitcaithly, W. Dunlop, F. Graham, C. Coo!:, i:\ Waymouth, G. Scott, M. J. Miller, D. McMillan, J. Lambic, J. Hay, G. Witty M.P., A. Kayc, J. BroM-n, and H. (Juane.

The Chairman asked members to endeavour to express their views as concisely as possible, but in no May to interfere M-ith the liberty of discussion. Tho imposition of a time limit had been EUggcsted, but this was considered inadvisable. Mr Wavrnouth thought it M-ould be advisable to have a definite motion before the meeting, and tho chairman agreed. A HOSTILE RESOLUTION. Mr H. Friedlander (Ashburton) proposed:— "That tho timo is premature to consider the question oi going outBide the present, moles for harbour extension.'' The speaker said that the members of the Board had been advised by Mr, Quanc to approach the report of .Messrs Coode, Sou, and Matthews with an j open mind. Ho hoped that the members would approach the que.-tion in that manner, and not allow their vision to !>e obscured by parochial interests. It was not the city and _=üburij_. of Ckr-s-chur-h and Heathcote which would exclusively pay for and c-ntirely support the canal. The city and suburbs wero to a very large extent de- | pendent for their own progress and prospects on tho welfare of the surrounding country, aud to handicap these largo agricultural and pastoral areas Mith such a huge burden as the annual interest alone on the cost of tho canal would be killing the goose which largely helped to lay the golden eggs. Personally, ho could approach this question with an open mind, as all his interests Mere situated on tho boundaries of two harbour districts, Lyttelton and Tiniaru. Tho subject v.as ono of tho most important which had ever come before the Board, and unless the Board Mas careful, it might spell ruin to this part of tho Dominion for generations to come. He proposed to divide his remarks into three parts: (1) canal or no -tin-al from an engineering point of vieM"; (2) canal or no canal from a financial and general policy aspect; (3) has the timo arrived when it is absolutely necessary to consider the question of extensive harbour extensions at Lyttelton ?_. His replies to these questions wero against tho canal. The question of con..tmi-ting a canal was partly raised on acconnt of dissatisfaction with tho railway rates on tho Lytte-ton-Chrisfcchurch line, jikl ■when tho demon had been set going it •was not so easily laid. Tlio speaker referred to tbe various matters which had been taken in connection with the canal. The Boaid, by tho smallest of majorities, and entirely duo to the action of tltat irresponsible body, tho Chamber of Commerce, in forcing Mr •Gibbs to voto as it directed, had to face an expenditure of £3000 to havo the engineers report reported on. This expenditure was forced on tho Harbour Board district in the face of tho fact that tho local bodies had, with no uncertain sound, intimated that they considered the sehemo premature and that oonsent for rnting, even if the scheme ■wero feasible, would not bo givcyi. Ho would candidly admit that this largo . expenditure of £3000 was not a waste of money. (Mr Kaye: Hear, hear.) He was glad to havo tho approval of tho president of the Chamber of Commerce. • .Laughter). The money was not wasted, as it had clearly proved to him and tlio country members that when it. became a question for this Board as to the expenditure of a considerable sum of money to obtain information that might benefit' tho city, although the country had emphatically said No, and when it became a question of tho expenditure of millions for tho probable temporary benefit of Christchurch -and its immediate surroundings, tho "country which supported tho city had to take a back seat. Tho country people within the harbour area would therefore take good care "to put the rating key under double lock." Tlio Board had something tangiblo for its £3000 in the shapo of having their engineers report on the Gollan's Bay harbonr confirmed, should it bo found necessary to go outside their present moles. He referred to the navigation difficulties mentioned in Messn. Coode, Sob and Matthews' report, and asked ■whether, with that authoritative opinion against tho proposal the Board, as laymen, wore justified in considering the scheme further. He said most decidedly, No. Tho Board could not expect to get the ratepayers' oonsent to a rating- area, or to get the Government* to put an Empowering Bill through authorising a cahal to come into competition with themselves. From an engineering point of view, the canal was dead for tho present, and the canal report should bo left until tho 999 years

leases in perpetuity had expired. He desired to give the canal its exit from a general policy and financial aspect;. Tho total cost of the canal Mas estimated at £1,921,..'0. interest during time of construction (ten years) at 4| per cent, on half the amount £432,305, Lvttelton Harbour Board indebtedness £150.000, total £2.503,66... Deducting the amount realised on the sale of the plant used on the canal (onethird its first cost) £109,615. the total net cost would be £2.394,0_0. The interest on this amount at 4.J' per cent. would bo £107,"30, less present annual expenditure for interest £14.400. Thus the increased annual expenditure for interest alono would be £93.330. Tlio difference between the cost of-work-ing the present port, and the canal would be that amount. How M-as this enormous annual increase to be met ? Ho would take for granted, though he did not admit:—(l) That thero would bo no greater risk to ships in navigating tho canal than the present Port of Lyttelton. and that ships trading to Heathcote would pay no increased insurance rate; (2) tiiat the upkeep of this artificial waterway, constructed through sandy material at a length of ft J miles, would not be greater than the upkeep of the present port, and that port charges and freight charges Mould not be raised: (3) that all goods to and from tho present Harbour Board area mouIS find their way

through the canal; (4. that even the Government would send all their goods through the docks at Heathcote; (5. that the W#*st Coast railway, when completed, would not divert any of the trade which Mould be .done between tho West Coast and Canterbury; (6) that the gradual expansion of the trade at Tiniaru M-ould not compete with the , cstnl for it- revenue; (7) that there would bo-a saving of 25 per cent, to the public on passenger fares between Chiistchurcb and the proposed docks(B) that tho expenditure of over £500.000 on the Lyttelton harbour was of no consideration; (9) that an earthquake might demolish the Lyttelton tunnel, but. thoughtfully, not in any way damage the canal, although they would be almost within a stone's throw

of each other; (10) that although artificial waterways were generally "national" undertakings, yet the Lyttelton Harbour Board wax justified in tiffing the experiment of eventually ex-

pending some 2_ millions in this direction, with tho knowledge that there were very few canals which paid their M-ay: (11) that the risk of keeping a narrow artificial channel from getting blocked Mas not worth taking into con-sideration-when there was a magnificent natural harbour within two and a hall" miles; (12) that the tunnel could not be electrified so that a stream of loaded trucks could almost continuously be sent either to or from Lyttelton; (13) that the facilities for handling cargo at Lyttelton and the despatch oi trucks from" the prc-ont port could not be improved ii {ton.

With ail these contingencies temporarily given in favour of the pro]>osed scheme, he came back to the quid pro quo M-hich the Board was to for the ir.crea...d annual expenditure in interest. Thi* docks at Heathcote M-ould be 4 miles 54 chains by railwayto Christchurch. against 6 miles 10 chains from Lyttelton to Christchurch. The saving would therefore be on two miles only. For the purposes of this argument he divided the Lyttelton businc&s into two parts, classing under imports: general merchandise, salt, minerals, coal, and timber, and under exports : grain and agricultural produce, frozen meat, butter and wool. The saving in railage thereon Mould be (omitting shillings and pence) on £ _. _. 127.611 ton* mereh-cdisß, at Is por tor. .. 0300 0 0 15-.a.0 tor.-s coai. at 2d per ton 12?:j fi 0 1...-131 tors _?_.!_. at 2d r.er ton .. 11U 0 0 :;ii._ toi_- mirxrals, <ay Ls per ton l._ 0 0 _-,___.2.eft timber. LCd per 1000 ft 1017 0 0 £05C7 0 0 Phis say 65 per cent, increase during: next ten year. .21fl 0 0 £-15.765 0 0 Th,?;. exported la-st y._ir. ar.d the savir.3 in railage would Im?, <mi Ci,026 lots srrain ar.d agricultural protluos, cv 5d pot t;n .. 13-55 0 0 23.1J*. toij. frozen m-rat. etc.. at 1= per ton .. .. 1-59 0 0 7'j.e<Jo baios woo!, at Id p«r bale 13__ (I 0 I'lu.- 15 p-er col.*, increase durir-jr n_xt ten y-ears on £.140 .. C_l 0 0 £20,546 0 0 Add 25 per oent. for pas^cn^cr traffic on £25,313 (Messrs 01----bvier's estimate. -- .. 632S 0 0 Plus 25 p<t ccr.-t. increase durin_r r.cxt ten years .. .. 15.2 0 0 £-8.450 0 0 Add _.v,r_g_ annuaJ net i_r.en.ie * (1865-1907) .. .. .. 4302 0 0 Plus ray 50 per oer.t. durii_g next ten years .. .. 2101 0 0 Total ai»__n,l saving- .. .. £34..750 0 0 Against total annual increase fcr interest only .. .. £93.330 0 0 Estimated eniru-1 deficiency .. £5_,57l 0 0 In the face of tho Board's actual gross earnings from ordinary sources during the most prosperous years never having exceeded £59,300 in any one year, was any member sanguine enough to think the huge increased expenditure could be made up from rents from reclaimed lands? "Would the canal be the means of reducing port and rail charges, and so foster existing and new industries to such an extent that Christchurch must become a manufacturing contro for the Dominion, and so increase the trade of the port that it would largely help to make up for the annual increased • expenditure of £58,571 ? Owing to the geographical position of tho port they would not long bo able to compete successfully with Dunedin, Wellington, Napier, and Auckland for a fair sharo of the trade in those districts. The saving of heavy transhipping charge. alone M-ould be greatly in their favour. Ho asked again: Where mas tho increased revenue for the port to come from? The Harbour Board area had already been intensely cultivated, and looking over the exports during tho last tM*onty years ho found they wore hardly holding their OM-n, M'hen instead of value they reckoned actual tonnage handled annually, which was a correct way in M'hich to base tho figures, as they levied their charges at per ton, and not at per £ value As to Christchurch becoming a largo exporting industrial centro to other parts of the world, that was iridiculous. If they made a canal, heavy additional port charges would havo to be levied to pay the way. The host thing to bring trade to a port M-its to make it a "free port" as far as possible, and not to increase tho charges. Some people said there was no necessity to make the canal the size recommended by Messrs Coode, Son and Matthews. The objection was made because there was a huge differonce in tho estimate of cost between the English engineers and Mr Williams, and because the former did not recommend tho scheme. They must either accept Messrs Coode, Son and Matthews' report in toto or stultify themselves by telling the Morld thoy had spent £3000 on an opinion which they M-ero not going to accept. If the time had arrived Mhen it was absolutely necessary to consider the question of extensive harbour extension at Lyttelton." He quite admitted that it Mas prudent to look ahead, but it was. imprudent'to go ahead too fast. It was beyond doubt that tho wharf accommodation was mcro than ample for tho present trade at Lyttelton. For years past, although trade had increased, a very considerable length of berthage aocommedation M-as not occupied. The engineer, in a recent memorandum, said that they conld increase the unoccupied berthage for six more ocean steamers, making room for tM-elvo at once. The engineer further stated that it would not bo necessary to go outside the pre.cnt moles fcr at leas* 20 years. That M-as a complete admission that it was premature to consider the question of another harbour. The daily increasing facilities for unloading ships, the constantly increasing size of steamers. and the quick despatch they received compared with the slom- discharge iv former years mado it appear that the Port Mould Ik* large enough for generations to come. Although business at Lyttelton was on the increase, and gross revenue M-as £29,462 for '263,966 tons handled in ISSS. and was at tho end of 1907 £56.676 for 3C0.G21 tons, yet the berthing accommodation M-as less taxed now than it M-as M-hen sailing ships did business instead of steamers. They were doing M-ell, paying their May, providing sinking fund on Harbour Board indebtedness, making necessary extensions, and paying for the upkeep of the wharves out of revenue, ko why not leave well alone. Since 18S5 they had ' had S years in M-hich the tonnago handled at Lyttelton Mas less than the years immediately preceding. He had every faith that the Government would some day see the errors of its ways and do what was just and fair. No candidate should be supported who would not mj-dert-ake to withdraw his support from the Government if the Minister of Railways refused to p<ut the Port line on the same footing in respect to charges as other similar lines enjoyed. The Almighty in his M-isdom had given them a magnificent natural harbour, and they were sent there to administer that priceless gift. They should continue to *wisely perform tho duties clearly laid down for them by their predecessors. They should be true to themselves, loyal to those thoy represented, and like the Royalists m-Ik> honoured their dead and living king, by shouting, ''lie Roi est mort; vive le Roi!" they should say, "The canal is dead, long" live Lyttelton."

Mr Lambie, in seconding the motion, congratulated Mr Friedlander on his able review of tho whole position. The cry for a canal had been raised for a long time, but seemed to have gained strength of late years. When tho idea of obtaining electricity from the Waimakariri was mooted, Christchurch people entertained a beautiful dream of a d listless, noiseless city. M-hich should bo the foremost manufacturing centre in the hemisphere. Cliristclmrch was rather famed for drc-ins of that <-iaracter. The Board had given the matter the fullest consideration, and their

engineer's opinion had been endorsed by the most eminent firm in the world' Everything pointed to the folly of abandoning a natural harbour and constructing an artificial one at great cost. When the- financial fcitle of the canal was considered, it would be seen that it wouid handicap Christchurch for many years. It -was not likely that the Government would sanction a scheme that wouKi kill its own railway. The latepayers in the country also would oppoce it very largely. And then there were also adverse labour conditions to be considered. IN SUPPORT OF THE CANAL. Mr A. Kaye said Mr Friedlander had made rath'-r pointed reierenco to the Chamber of Commerce in characterising it as an •"irresponsible body." It possessed, among its members, the very oi:st business talent in the city, 'ihat being so, its resolutions and opinions should carry a certain amount ot weight, and certainly it was not, an irresponsible body. Keferenee had been made to Mr Isaac Gibbs. Being at the head of a largo shipping company, naturally he would ue against the canal, molding views opposed to the Chamber, he very properly resigned. Mr l-'riod-lamlerat first referred to the £3000 exponded upon the report .as waste of money, and afterwards commended the expenditure. -Vit Kiicdlander denied this assertion and reiterated that ho believed the amount would not be altogether wasted. Continuing, Mr Kaye said both mover and seconder of the motion were really nut of the question. They naturally supported limaru harbour, which wad cheaper for thorn. '1 hey therefore iiiul not the same interest in the canal question as tlio community of ChristcfiiKch. The motion that it was premature to consider the question of going outside the present moles sought to prevent them looking to the future. The-/ had to consider what was going to happen fifty or a hundred years hence, as the old pioneers did when they first landed in Canterbury. That was how the canal question first caino up. They were asked to settle the question once and for all, whether it was feasible- to have a canal—possibly not now, but in ten or twenty years hence-. That was the proposition in view of largo extensions at Lyttelton. The report was most distinctly in favour of the canal. (Cries of '"Yes" and

•"No".) -Messrs Coode, Son and Matthews said it Mas only a question of expense. From a navigation and engineering point of view (and those Mere tho only points they wero asked to report upon) Messrs Coode, Son and Matthews Mere perfectly right to decide on Gollan's Bay. They wero not asked to report on transport facilities or tho many other difficulties and expenses that aroso through having to use the tunnel. For tho reasons stated they supported Gollau's Bay, Mhich member., of the Board would not have at any price, as that Mould increase and accentuate all their I:___,ent trouble. Tho firm recommended no extensions at Lyttelton. Tho Board could not accept Gollan's Bay, and they had to face the canal for the future. Throughout the report there M-ero to be found clauses (notably 73, 83, 84, 86, 89, and 135) strongly indicative of an absence of difficulties in the canal scheme, which was proved to be practicable and feasible. It was all a matter of policy and finance. When De Lesseps proposed to build the Suez Canal he was laughed at for his pains, and tho same thing happened M;hen a railway across Canada was projected. The time arrived when such large works became imperative, and he believed that the time would come when the canal M-ould not only be feasible, but desirable and practicable as well. He wanted the Lyttelton Harbour Board not to do those things M-hich would bo a matter of regret in time to come. If the canal Mere constructed immense savings would bo effected in handling and railway charges, despite tho large interest charges which would havo to be met. The speaker had as much respect for Mr Cyrus Williams's figures as for those given by Messrs Coode. Son and Matthews. In fact, throughout their report tho latter appeared to have used Mr Williams's figures as tho hasts for their estimate-. The only difference was that Coode, Son and Matthews appeared to have gone out ot their way to prepare a report upon what woukl be required for the next fifty years. The Board's engineer had prepared a report based on the requirements of ships coming into the port at tho present time, and involving an expenditure of something like a million. Auckland proposed to spend two millions in altering its harbour and' putting it on a first-class footing, rbat. expenditure M-as not absolutely required just now, but Auckland was looking ahead. On every side all sorts of schemes, involving the expenditure of large sums of money, were being carried out. If that was so, should they in Christchurch be content to sit still and allow those coming after tnem to say they were slow and non-progres-sive? He hoped that posterity would be enabled to look back upon them as they now looked back upon the old pioneers, who thought out a canal scheme as soon as thoy landed Tiie Almighty intended them to use their wisdom and make a canal to Heathcote. '"Don't let> our children say we put this scheme in the pigeon-hole and left it there." (Mr Friedlendor: "That's about all it is good for.") He proposed os an amendment:

'•That the reports of Messrs Coode, Son and Matthews, and of Mr Cyrus Williams, the Board's engineer, bo referred to a special committee, with poM-ere to collect evidence, and to report to the Board upon the financial aspects of the second recommendation of Messrs Coode, Son and Matt hows, for the construction of a dock at Heathcote, Mith a canal to Sumner; such committer* to take Mr Williams's estimate of cost as a basis M'ith such modifications from Messrs Coode. Son and Matthews's report as it may deem advisable. The committee to consist of the Chairman! Messrs Graham, Moore. Pitcaithly, Quane, Richardson, Waymouth. and the mover."

Mr Waymouth said that he seconded the amendment with great pleasure, the more so as ho felt that he wa.s the member who was, perhaps, more than any other responsible for the Board obtaining tho report from Messrs Coode, Son and MatthoM-s. He had brought the matter before the Board as a private member, anel some time after-M-ards the decision to obtain the report M _ as come to on his casting vote as chairman. HoM-ever, the responsibility did not rest very heavily on hi.s shoulders, and ho hael not lost any sleep through it. Tho expenditure of the £3000 had been most valuable to the Board, and it had settled, once and lor all, that the canal M-as feasible and practicable. Messrs Coode, Son and Matthews had recommended the Gollan's Bay harbour in preference to the other. He considered that they had gone outside tho scope of what they were asked to give the Board. (Assent and dissent.) They were not asked to recommend any scheme unless they could recommend one which M - as not recommended by the engineer. They were limited in their report to an investigation of the engineering points, the matter of finance being specially excluded. He believed that the very exclusion of the financial considerations had led tho engineers to report in favour of the Gollan's Bay harbour, as that was about one-half the cost. (A member: One third.) He was satisfied that the Gollan's Bay scheme was dead —(Hear, hear) —but the canal was more alive to-day than ever it was. (Dissent.) In his opinion Gollan's Bay was most unsuitable as a harbour. The present Lyttelton harbour was unsuitable to the requirements of the trade of the district, and Mould be more unsuitable as years went by, mainly because there Mas no flat land to carry on shunting operations and erect the necessary stores. In Gollan's Bay that eiiflienltv Mould be further accentuated. He considered, in opposition to the motion, that then' was no time like the present to go outside the present moles.

The accommodation was very restricted now, and the crampedness was being felt in business. During June lie visited the port, and found every berth for large vessels occupied. He also heard that a ship was waiting in Wellington to be advised when a berth would' bo available. (Mr Fricdlander: What date?) Mr Wayinouth: Don't interrupt. I got my information from the harbourmaster. "Continuing, the speaker asked, if this took place in June, which was admittedly in the slack season, what would it be in the busy season, in a few years' time. The engineer had recommended the construction of three wharves. They would give more accommodation for ships, but the difficulty would be only accentuated, as shunting operations could not bo carried on. How woiild Lytteltou be able, in twenty years' time, to cope with the increased business, especially when a largo amount of the business in exports had to bo done in six months' time. .So one would deny that the trade of the district was going to increase, and in his opinion it was going to increase very considerably, lie was very optimistic about the trade of the district, unless the Harbour Board put restrictions on it by not fmdin<; sufficient accommodation. He knew that Lytteltou was not now getting the "*<ade it should got. Ashburton was on the border line between Titnaru and Christchurch. Thousands of carcases of frozen meat were railed to Tiniaru, so that port was approaching the second .largest port in New Zealand for such exports. Probably Ashburton being on the border line had led Mr Friedlander to think that Ashburton might Go outside the rating area when that question came up. However, whether Lyttelton made its boundary the Ashbiirton river or not, Tiniaru would see that Iho southern boundary met the northern. H<- considered tlint in their I report Messrs Coode, »Son and Matihews had gone beyond anything that was likely to be or possibly could be necessary. There was no necessity for the Hoard to provide Soft of water tor vessels which have to go into ports where there were only 2b'lt available. The distance was much less to Heathcote than to Lyttelton. Very little expansion of Lyttelton trade could be provided for under the present conditions. The Government had been bleeding Canterbury by the tunnel charges for thirty years, and would continue to do so as long vis the tunnel was the only access to the port. Mc found that 180,000 tons of goods passed over the. Lyttelton •wharves last year. In making a computation as to "what the railage would h-i for the extra dis- i t-anco to Oollan's Bay, ha.serl on £<] -nor ton on general merchandise, and Id per ton on other goods, tlio result sbo-.vrd that the extra amount mid would be £y(ioa. As to the distance of the docks from the city, ho did not know where Mr Friedlander got his measurements. He considered that the docks would- not ie> moro than from tfireo to three and a-half miles from the centre of the town. In his mind there was no doubt that sooner or later the canal would come. Messrs Coodo, Son and Matthews had increased the dimensions of the canal unnecessarily, and therefore the estimated cost was greater than it should be. The 800 acres of land to be reclaimed would -bo very valuable- for sites for industries, but they had not been allowed for in the estimates. At Lyttelton at present it was double handling for everything, and triple handling of some goods which passed through the tunnel. He had shown that Lyttolton was not sufficient for present and prospective trade, and 'ho Board would be failing in its duty if it did not do what it could to extend the trade of the district. The farming capabilities of Canterbury had practically not been discovered yet. The expansion to which that con id go must lead the. Board to consider what they should do for tho furtherance of the trade of the district. He knew of one. industry which could havo been started in Canterbury, which -would have meant a large expenditure and annual turnover, but For tho heaviness of 'lie tunnel rates. Ho eombattod Mr Friedlander's statement that there would be an expenditure-of £462.000 in interest, as part of the canal was bound to bo tised by tho smaller vessels long before the full work was completed. In conclusion, he expressed tho hope that tho Boa-T'l would allow the report to go :o a committee, to report on the financial position. A GENERAL DISCUSSION. Mr Buddo combatted tho idea that country ratepayers would .neoessanly oppose tlfe. canai scheme. He. pointed out, however, that there was no immedifl+'ft necessity for increasing tho accommodation at Lyttolton, nor for a canal. He estimated that the trade oi : the pm -t wm'h-i increaso by 15 per cent, ovory ten years. Tho engineer , estimated that the- present .accommodation of tho port would euffico for twenty yeans. While their ports were eminently suited to the needs of New Zealand at present, it could nob be assumed that the same amount of development would take place in our largo towns as in Axistralia. Tho completion of the Midland Railway would tend to reduce tho trade of Lyttelton very considerably. The Manchester | Canal had not yet begun to pay, and ho had yet to learn that a canal superseding a natural harbour was a wiso step. The cost of tho canal to Hea-th- i cote (leaving Linwood out of the question) was estimated at £1.921.136, and interest at o per cent. £96.028. It they divided tho interest charge by one-half, they would find £480,000 would have to be provided over an a vera go of ten 3 - ears. in-e. capital valuation of North Canterbury (including Ashburton County, half of which would claim to be exempted) was £'_'3.8;52. tol "for the counties, and £10. ti)0.200 for the boroughs. Tho rate required for the first three and a half years would bo id in tho £; for six and two-thirds years of the balance id in the £. and for tho last three and cue-third years 2 and 2-3 rd farthings in the £. He pointed out that the Board's revenue last year (after providing for tl:o tug. but omitting tho amount for which they sold the old tug) just about balanced the expenditure-. In addition, they had still to pay on the £200,000 debt remaining on tho Port of Lyttn'ton. The Lyttelton rate on stennvors was practically l?<] per ton. Wellington (at the loivori limit) ~«1, Otngo about SJd. and Tiniaru f>i?d (the latter beirg supported by contributions from the ratrpnyers). Lyttolton. ,they would thus we. had about the lowest rate, and could stand any fair iv.crMSP. He had no sympathy with thr idea that the Government wouH not approve of any action tho Beard mi<rH take. If tho Board ami the ratepayers approved of any scheme. Parliament would havo to epprovo also.There was a difficulty in keeping the entrance to caua.h below tho dancer level. If they enforced higher port charge* it would lead to decreasfed trade. A large amount of produce from AsKbnrton n*-d some imports were worked through Timaru. That volume j would be increased ,md more of their trade would go to Timaru if such a polity were persisted in. In regard to the port railway charges, it w-as stirj posted that tho Canterbury members ! should band together to secure a re- | duetion. That vms the position already. Enquiries had been made, end it was sought to be shown that the charges were tho same ss in other centres. Certain charges wore imposed en the imports and nothing on the exports, therefore the country peopie were not so much interested, and the matter affected only the city merchants. Fi?y enquiry should be made into the matter, and if there was nny difference in the charges, these should be brought into lino with port charges at other centres. He opposed tho amendment on the ground that the Board had

made the fullest enquiry into the scheme, and was competent to settle the matter in open meeting forthwith.

Mr Colin Cook said he would like to see Canterbury possess a first-class port, which mcs not possible Mith a bar harbour. Ships could not ahvays get hi, and a bar harbour M-as never anything j better than a second-class port. Ail canals Mere second-class port 6. Ho referred to the Manchester ship canal, and those at Melbourne and Brisbane. Dunedin possessed what was practically a canal, and only a foM- days ago the Matatua had to unload two feet of j cargo m order to proceed from Port Chalmers to Dunedin. tihero tho most costly port charges in NeM- Zealand Mere imposed, 'l.ie speaker proceeded to demonstrate the earnings of the port of Lyttelton, as shown by the cost of tho 495,000 tons of canco (imports and exports) between Lyttelton and Christchurch in_ 1907. Tho railway earnings Mere £73,000, harbour wharfage £2<_>,ooo, port charges, pilotage fees and other dues paid by ships £21,8-0, giving a total of £123.070, or an average cctst cf -Is 11 Jd per ton. The aver- ! age cost of railway charges hetMeen the i>_rt and the city Mas 2s lid per ton. Merchandise to the city cost Is 3d per ton; but to stations beyond tho city only 2s lid. BetM-een" 60,000 and 70.000 tons were carried—at that reduced rate. Coal and timber (tM"o of the largest items of imjiortation) Mere carried a minimum distance of 12 and 10 miles respectively on an average rate of 3s. Coal sent, say, to Ashburton. produced to tho Department only Is 2d for the seven miles of the port line. The average raiiuay charge M-as rapidly reduced M-hen they came to deal Mith tho exports, so much so that grain coming to Lyttelton from a radius of 50 miles earned only sixpence per ton for the port line, M-hilo m-001 from Culverden produced an extra twopence per bale; from Amberley an extra fourpence, and from Rakaia iivepence. Taking the high average of four pence, they aot an additional revenu**- of Is 8d pet- ton on mool for the port line. The same conditions applied to frozen meat. From Islington the increase m-us 2s 4d per'ton. and from Belfast 2s, or an average nf 2t. 2d. Hie estimated cost (•Minual charges) of goods per a port at Heathcote on a basis of 495,000 tons (reckoning tM'o and a half millions expenditure being the cost of the M-ork and inter-iit durinjr construction) M-orked out. as follows:—-Interest £112.500: working expenses (taking Mr Williams'; estimate) £18.870; handling 495.000 tons at Is per ton, £24,750 : dredgine £20.000; total £176.120. The railage f-r-.b Mould lie £-1201. The railway charged for coal and timl>er irrespective of distance tin to 10 ."•-'.! '*. milerespectively. 3s plus the handling, so that no raving M-ould be effected on those lines. The total cc_>t on the canal scheme to the community would be slightly over 9s per ton on a basis of !a--"t year's can?., as against an average of slightly under ss" per ton homavailable from Lyttelton. On the business of the past, it would lie 1958 before tho cost of coods coming by way of Heathcote could be reduced to tho level of the Lyttelton charges existing to-day. Referring to the Gollan's Bay proposal, the speaker commented upon the difference in the respective estimates supplied by Mr Cyrus AVilliams and Coode, Son and Matthews. It seemed to him (Mr Cook) that a harbour with two or three jetties for the largest steamers could be provided at Gollan's Bay for a little more than half the total estimate, and that harbour, as tho English report pointed out. Mould cost nothing for maintenance by way of dredging at tho entrance. Mr Geo. Witty. M.P., said that he would support tho amendment. It M-ould not be fair to the people to throw tho report away like an old glovo, and bo afraid to discuss it. Ho had listened to the speeches with interest. One. M-as a Lyttelton harbour speech, one a Kaiapoi harbour speech, and another sneaker Mas in the happy position of being independent of either harbour, and did not care what the Board did. Mr Friedlander objected to this remark. | Mr Witty said that he made no reflection on Mr Friedlander. He pointed out that the estimates did not allow anything for the ultimate salo of the canal plant, or for tho value of the land reclaimed at Heathcote. The value of that land wonld bo more on a par with that of Wellington reclamations, rather than the reclaimed land at Lyttelton. Ho referred briefly to _»ir Friedlander's eulogy of tho natural beauties of the Lyttelton harbour, and said that the Board should endeavour to improve on Nature. Ho considered that Mr AVilliams's report was better Chan that of Messrs Coode, Son and Matthews. The latter firm had gone beyond what they were asked to do, and had based a good deal of their report on enquiries from captains and other people, and not on practical work. Gollan's Bay harbour Mould not improve tho position, but rather make it M-orso. as it M-ould carry them further away from Christchurch, and they M-ould still have tho tunnel rates to pay. In fact the cost of a noM- tunnel must be added to tho cost of the Gollan's Bay scheme. In considering the scheme they had to look to the whole of Canterbury, not merely to Lyttelton. There M*as a population of 4000 in Lvttolton. and about 150,000 in the rest of Canterbury. He was convinced that if there had been a canal in tho past Christchurch would have been the premier city of Nor- Zealand. He agreed with Mr Waymouth that Canterbury had not reached half its capabilities of production yet. If the canal wore constructed goods M-ould ho landed in Christchurch much more cheaply than at present, and tilvere M-ould be a great saving in passenger fares. The 1300 acres o? reclaimed land at Heathcote M-ould be an asset- on M'hich a very high value would bo placet!. In his opiniou a depth of 35 feet in the canal was not required, and if they took off 5 feet there M-ould 1_? a saving of £60,000. Tho accommodation M-as also much mote than would be required. In conclusion, ho repeated thait if Canterbury had had the oanal, Christchurch" M'oukl now havo been extending to Sockburn, and M-ould have been the largest city in New Zealand. The Board Mould l>e failing in its duty if it did not further consider tho report. Mr F. Graham sup-ported the amendment. The Board should have a definite and 6trong expression of opinion about the report. Neither t-ho canal nor tho Gollan's Bay schemes was very urgent, but it would-be undesirable to pronounce them unworkable without further consideration. Thero were many differences of opinion ar, to the financial a-.pect of the matter, and this ..h-ould rtrongthen the Board in carryins the amendment. The money spent in obtaining the report had been well spent, and tho Eo.irdv.as now in possession of a very valuai,_e record. Mr H. Quano said that tho oopre.ssivo rail charges from Lytt__tc_i to Christchurch and the roport. of congestions at the port were responsible tor this meeting of the Board. It was a matter of history that forty years ago the tunnel scheme was just as vigorously opposed at. the canal scheme was uom-" being op_-cs-d. Now it was found that the port was inadequate for the trade sent through tho tunnel. It seemed to be obvious that thero must ultimately bo a harbour at Gollan's Bay or a canal. A harbour at Golan's Bay would mean that the Board wouW ha.ye to keep up two harbours, and there mui>t also be a duplication of the tunnel. Tho expert did not put before the Board any insurmountable difficulties as far as the canal was concerned. He referred to the probable increase of trade between Christchurch and the West Coast, consequent on the shortening of the journey by the completion of the Midland Railway, and the effect which this Mould have on harbour traffic.

Mr J. Richardson supported the

amendment, as the Board would not bo doing its duty by simply putting the report- in a pigeon-hole. The feasibility and practicability of the canal had been demonstrated by the report, and it had boon shown that the dangers of navigation anticipated by many of the opponents of the canal d'd not exist. He suggested that the public should bo given an opportunity p digest the report until tho elections in February next, Mhen members Mould be returned to represent public opinion. He felt that tho financial results of the canal would exceed their most sanguine anticipations. He referred to the mi--cess. of tho Glasgow-Clyde canal scheme*, and suggested tltat it might be emulated by the City of Christchurch. Tho scheme should be placed before tho people iv a fair and open-handed manner. The value of the reclaimed laud at Heathcote would be very much More than that at Lyttelton. as it would bo utilised by industries.

_dr J. Hay said that Lyttelton must ahvays be kept as a port. If they ha 1 xhe canal it could not be used as a coaling station. The Government mouUi then IoM-er the rates to some ridiculous sum, in order to retain Lyttelton as a coaling station, especially as it wa« the only coaling station in the South 1.-luno. The Canterbury members should Ik? pledged to mp_>ort a reduction of tho Lyttelton tunnel rates, and inform .he Government that they would oppose every motion in the 11.v".-.* until that M-as'done. He supported the motion.

Mr G. Scott said that the cngineding reports Mere not complete until thoy had a report- on the financial aspect of the proposal. He analysed the "estimates submitted by the Board's _nMinecr and Messrs Coode, Son and Matthews, especially in regard to tie Gollan's Bay scheme, and commented on a number of discrepancies. The estimates received from the engineers at Homo were not reliable, and tho fir.n had exceeded its instructions. The canal scheme had been- proved feasible, and tho Board could not complete its work until it had a report- as to the financial aspect. Speaking as a manufacturer, he expressed the conviction that Chri.tchuTch M-ould never bo a manufacturing centre a.s long as they had to contend with the tunnel rates. He gave several instances of the inconveniences which manufacturers in Christchurch wero subjected to in railago of goods from Lyttelton to Christchurch. If Christchurch was to become a manufacturing centre they must have tho canal. The farmer., of Cantorbury •v ..ild be far better off if they could sell their produce in Christchurch rather lhan ship it aMay. Mr Cook had referred to the alleged difficulty of keeping tho canal open at Sumner, but tho report showed that there had been no change during the past fifty years. He strongly supported the amendment.

Mr Pitcaithly supported the amendment. Lyttelton, he said, could bo mado suitable for a good lor- years at small expense. But before any large expenditure was entered upon, tho matter should bo very' carefully considered. He believed the canal would be constructed M-ithin twenty years. A strong argument in favour of the canal M-as the fact of the limited railway accommodation at Lyttelton.

Mr R. Moore considered, not that it M-as premature to consider tho scheme, but that it M-as premature to go on M'ith the M-ork for tho next seven or eight years—until they M-ero satisfied that the canal was more required than at present. He commented upon the fact that, nearly all of the members who favoured' obtaining Messrs Cocdo, Son and iLatthews' report had practically torn it to pieces because it did not coincide Mith their vie Ms. It served them right if they uere penalised by the tunnel rate. The Ministry had been able to M-ipe the floor M'ith Christchurch and suburbs for yeare. They had been imposed upon because thoy had -not put their back to the wall audi demanded justice. Referring to the trade of tbe port, tho speaker said that tho land was not producing so much as it used to do. More might bo done, of course, by an intensive system of farming. There was no necessity to go on with the work proposed for tho next twenty years. They did not want it nor- and could very conveniently bury the scheme for ten years and resurrect it then if it M-ere shown to bo necessary.

Mr BroM-n supported the amendment as it committed the Board to nothing; but permitted further examination into the matter to be made.

Mr Miller supported the motion. He favoured the Gollan's Bay scheme as being a gocd one to keep in view. The Chairman regretted tho position he was in. Ho would like to have voted for Mr Kayo's amendment, but tho order of -reference laid down for tho committee being confined to the canal schemo only made it one-sided. If Mv Kaye's amendment was lost lie intended to move a further amendment that the committee enauire into tho financial aspects of all phases of the reports.

The amendment was then put. Tilvoting M-as equal, and the proposition Mas defeated on tho casting vo_e o' the* chairman. Tho division list was as follows:—Ayes: Messrs Graham, Pilcaithley, Scott, Richardson, Quane, Brown, Witty, Waymouth and Kayo. Noes: The Chairman, Messrs Friedlander, La::.'no, Dunlop, Moore, Miller, Cook, Hay. and Buddo.

Mr Friedlander, as the mover of the motion, then replied. He reg ott _d that the Board Mas not any fur .'*.__■ fonvard now than tho day on whvl: the matter first came up. The anion I ment M-ould have committed then t~ the canal scheme alone. There had boon several statements alleging congestion at Lyttelton, but these had net teen supported by facts and ft _-.fi s. Ht M-ould favour Gollan's Bay "as a means of harbour extension, and he* considered that ample ground foi extension could he found there by iccla .nation. The supporters of the canal had said that- their opponents had not given the country en opportunity tiC scuss the canal scheme. As a matt*: of fact, the country M - as against it Mhfii the scheme M-as estimated to cost ono million pounels, so the opposition Mould probably be greater nnw than formerly. Out of 59 local bodies communicated M-ith. only eight M-ere in favour oi' the scheme, and with the exception of tMo, all expressed the opinion that the scheme was premature.

A further amendment by the chairman, that a committee consisting of .Messrs Kayo, Cook. Scott. Waymouth, Lambie. Richardson, Qttane, Hay, Miller, Friedlander, and the mover enquire into the financial aspects of the gehemes proposed by both reports, was carried. Mr Friedlander agreeing to M'ithdraM- his motion.