ESTUARY PORT SCHEME.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20862, 23 May 1933, Page 5

ESTUARY PORT SCHEME.

RETURNED SOLDIERS' DISCUSSION. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION. "That the Christchurch Returned Soldiers' Association institute enquiries into the possibility of the establishment of a private company to further the scheme of Port Christchurch, with the object of raising preliminary capital enabling useful employment to be provided for the unemployed of Canterbury." The above notice of motion was tabled at a meeting of the executive of the association last evening by Mr T. L. Drummond; but it received little support, and was finally withdrawn. Mr Drummond said the association should try to enlist the support of the Port Christchurch League, with the object of approaching the Mayor, to get him to call a public meeting with the object of forming a company to get the work started. It was plain that Canterbury could be nothing without that estuary port, and it was also plain that the Government would not take a lead, because it derived much revenue from the Lyttelton Tunnel. The Port Christchurch scheme would provide labour, and useful labour, for the unemployed. Mr H. Fleck seconded the motion, pro forma. The president (the Rev. F. T. Read) called attention to the preliminary expense of getting reports from engineers and other experts. Members stated that experts had already reported on the scheme. Mr R. M. Grant said they would have to be prudent, because the people of Christchurch in general, and the members of the association in particular, were divided into two parties—those who supported the I Port Christchurch League, and those who supported the Port and City League. The association might tread on the toes of one of those parties, to its own detriment. At the same time, something would have to be done to secure more useful work for the unemployed than they were being given now. A glance round ; the city and suburbs revealed that the present position was ridiculous. Moving an amendment that the proposal be referred to the Port Christchurch League for favourable consideration, Mr J. S. Chisholm said that the matter was really outj side the jurisdiction of the association, whose business was to provide for former servicemen, and not for I the unemployed of Canterbury. ! Mr W. E. Leadley said that though ihe believed in the Port Christchurch scheme, he could support neither the motion nor the amendment, for the same reasons as had been advanced by Mr Grant. Port Christchurch would never be a reality till the people of Christchurch were united in the belief that it was necessary. To pass either the motion or the amendment would embark the association on a long and wearisome investigation which would lead nowhere. Mr E. W. Smith said he supported the Port Christchurch League; but he could not support the motion. Mr Fleck expressed agreement with the views of Mr Leadley. Mr Drummond asked leave to withdraw the motion, and leave was given, the amendment also lapsing.