THE MEANS TO PROGRESS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16406, 28 December 1918, Page 11

THE MEANS TO PROGRESS.

TO Till EDITOR OT "IM nTSS." Sir,—Subject to your indulgence, I cannot let your correspondent ''lain Wedge" have the last word just yet, because the subject- being dicursed between us, however inadequately on mv part, is a very serious one tor the future of ChrUtchurch, aud 1 believe evidence can be produced wlncli ■will show that the position ot Chns church is becoming serious. I hero evidence to be found that land tabic* in the citv have not come up to tm expectations formed 20 aS* 1 - is not a healthy signitc.see old bu d incs coming down and the sites lef M'" bu?lt on for years and r «P ldl > biek to a state ol nature, iu Chrui church 'f n three-storeyed binlams, gets destroyed, the tendency is to reelect it as a two-storev one finds one and two-storey buUdin.s be in" erected on land that tw ent. . ago was expected by th s time to reach a value of several hundred foot. There i.s something radically wrong, because these inst ™^ that owners either have no dem / 1 " c 1 premises ou their land, or no hiuli.m anv future demand. The cumulative effect of this state of aftairs means nation. Your correspondent mill Wedao" evidently recognises this, ana his idea is that salvation is to come through an improved I'vUelton. « e ha<i certainly not grasped the full meanin"" of "double handling, us practiscdi iiAhis town. Whatever it may mean elsewhere, double handling here means two main handlings, first into a ra,lw ?> truck and into a shed at Chnstcliurch, and, second, into n private lorry from the shed. Any handlings besides thi* are beside tho mark. The "point is that at Wellington there is only the one handling, that from the shed I>£ priv ato lorrv. The cost of the railway handling. or rather the profit made from \U goes' to Wellington (I believo.it is about 5s per ton at present). Our merchants, of course, pay this charge, and pass on to the public, thus increasing the cost to the consumer. If there were one handling only, by private lorry from a. Shed, tho nrofits from this traffic woulc, stop in Christchurch. Even if the lorries ■ chargcd the same as both. J -0 ' wav and lorrv at present, it would be an*improvement on the present system, tho profits remaining in our midst instead of being ©sported. Bub it is known accurately what it will cost by lorrv to brino- goods from the proposed site" of the canal, and they are only. a. fraction of the present rates. I/yttelton can never "be as accessible as Bromley, and if by the expenditure of indefinite sums of money the access thereto is improved. still it is seven miles ofr through, any tunnel, and nine miles off over the. hill. As for factory sites along the railway line to the Port, the land for about a third of the distance is so low that' even now, 70 years after the settlementof Christchurch, there is no direct roaa to the mouth of the tunnel or Heathcote township. Hundreds of acres or it would have to he.raised to provide a; fall for surplus drainage. Does your correspondent realise that a ship at Lyt~ telton Heads, or rather its passengers and cargo, are 14 miles from Christchurch. whereas on the same highway, onlv off New Brighton beach, those passengers arid that cargo would only b ® sis and « half miles from the G.I .V, < Christchurch, by direct route to .the sea, would be the nearest of any of the four town's to the ocean highway. JSo one expects us to rival Wellington as a distributing "centre, but we are entitled to do the best we can to keep our city from slipping backwards. When this.tunnel road is built and lorries can. go through the seven miles to tho Port, cfoes vour correspondent maintain that the Government ivill revise all its methods, pull up all the railway lines on the wharves, and erect goods sheds thereon and allow the oommunity. to handle-the goods as at Wellington The Government, will probably object, ■ but even if it did not, there is still that drive of seven miles, and that Tunnel "would have to be "some'J Tunnel to accommodate all the lorries required for the purpose. The clear recognition of these points,- among many • others, accounts for the agitation for a Canal, and if the public all pulled together and expressed a determination' to have it. I donT; see any logical reaeon why the Government should not be as willing to spend money on it in the form of subsidies, at least as it is willinn: to spend £600.000 on Lyttelton. It will he just .as much a public work, and ultimately benefit the Government as much as the people- directly concerned. The engineers in reporting on the Canal were, specially' instructed to leave out all references to "general policy" andl "financial considerations/' and confine it to. engineering. General policy and 1 finance is just th"- point where the layman comes in. . It was really an. invitation to the community to do some, of its own thinkmr. "When engineering does not actually a work, and general policy actually calls for it, the Intter should'carry the day. I anj convinced v it is tho.Qnly nfeasure likely to insure the certain progress of the dis-trict-as a manufacturing and distributing centre. —-Ynnrs. - etc.,CHAS, I>. MATSOX.

TO THK EDITOR OF "THE PRESS."

Sir. —In my letter, 'which appeared in your issue of 20th inst., 1 ' reminded "Thiri Wedge" that "so long ar> tho Tunnel remained the property of the Government, whether it be elootrificd or not, it can be used as heretofore, as a means of exploiting our city and province." .. Your correspondent, replying in your issue of tho 26th inst., agrees with fsr that "tho Tunnel should 1)8 vested in the Harbour Board." "What an admission ! It g063 without saying. As matters stand at present, our ship-. pillp: and commercial interests are under complete control of whimsical railway officials, who of late rears have caused our. city and province 'no'end of trouble, and our Harbour Board could do no more than sue to thorn for a little clemency! Now then, what does your correspondent propose in order to remedy'-all this? Ho suggests duplicating the Tunnel, a Tunnel road, naively suggesting that "it may be possible to have- the combined work administered by ono such Board." O! ah! The canal can be built at a far less ccst. and will of a surety bo administered by siicfli a Board. Now, sir. it has been well and truly said that thi« spine Tunnel ha<? boon tbe curse and bane of Canterbury. Even its bcneficcnt foi'nder. I understand, has resrott'ully admitted as much. If it had never coire into existence, we should have lird the canal long ago, and pur Harbour Board would complete control of our commercial end shipping inte.-rf'-ts, and we should be on an eonal footing with the untrammelled peoples of the world t.-> work out our. own destiny as a city anrl province, unhampered by irresponsible. r>ettifoiceing politicians, whether pitchforked into Cabinet rank or not. And. further let, your correspondent rest .i| a«ur«d that as a people we are fVJorroined that in the nenr future wo sMll bftve tl"» nort Chr'stchureh -ritbW our city, and out destinv entirely in our.own hands.—Tours, "fe..

W. I . CHRYSTALL December 27th, 1918,