PORT CHRISTCHURCH REFERENDUM

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21811, 17 June 1936, Page 7

PORT CHRISTCHURCH REFERENDUM

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—ln this morning’s issue my attention was directed by the large heading on this very important question of the Port Christchurch referendum. , . ~ rj. A letter has been sent to tne Rt. Hot M J. Savage, Prime Minister, bearing‘signatures of business men and representatives of councils the Chamber of Commerce, and the Manufacturers’ Association, and so on I notice that his Worship the Mayor of Christchurch heads the list and it must be taken that he speaks on beSlif nf all will he answer the few questions as under:-(D As Mayor of this city is he speaking on behalf of all Seniors as elected by thepeople? (2) Is he speaking on behalf of the Heathcote Council, as the business has never been before the council. It may be to-night, but as the councillors, as representatives of the people, have not been consulted by their chairman, they are all committed to something which theyhad°no say in. ™is to my mmd a serious matter. (3) Is Mr Bean land speaking a nd _ I ® ndi " g as Mayor to the Chamber of Commerce when he says that important body is unanimous? Is it. and if so. why did Mr Mac Gibbon, chairman of the Citizens’ Association, sign the Port Christchurch League a petition asking the Government’s consent to a re jf r Mr Beanland will be good enough to' answer these questions he will go a long way to clear the fog that he has been led into and give the people who he savs are incapabel of cising what God gave them intelligence—a referendum. It will help us citizens of Christchurch to appreciate a worthy Mayor.-Vo^etc^^ June 12, 1936. TO THE EDITOR OK THE PRESS. Sir —As you are aware, some two or three’ weeks ago deputations from the Port Christchurch League and the tun Si’* readers wailed on the ““ for Public Works, the Hon. R. Semple, and iked for a bill to be brought m so as to get better access to the sea, either by building anothertunneland spending thousands on the wharves, or as the Port Christchurch League would have none of this, by making a harbour in the estuary. The Minister gave them a most patient hearing and then told them in the direct language of which he is such a past master, that until they could agree as to what they really wanted that is to say, until a majority settled this cuestion, the Government could do nothing. Acting on this advice, the Port Christchurch League drew up a petition for the public to sign, asking for a referendum to be granted. In about two and a half days, upwards of three thousand signed it, and immediately the tunnel readers wrote to the Prime Minister asking him not to take any notice of this petition. Do the tunnel roaders think that this man, the man who has stood foursquare to the winds all his life for democracy, will take any notice of such a request? In what other way can the wishes of a majority be found out? In all matters affecting the interests of the people, this is the only means of knowing their wishes. And it has long been understood that prohibition and other questions of like importance are all referred to the people. Even members of Parliament have to come before the electors very three years. Is not this a referendum? Notwithstanding this, we find a few “souls with stunted vision” asking the Prime Minister to ignore a most reasonable ,and just request. When’ a referendum is granted, then the people can decide which they prefer—tunnel road, port in estuary, or neither. A majority can be decided on—bare, three-fifths, or twe-thirds; that is for the opposing parties to decide. I am disappointed to see you opposing the granting of a referendum. You may not believe in having a port in the estuary, that is your funeral, but to oppose the granting of the means of finding out what are the wishes of the people, well, that is another story. One would have thought that after the fiasco of the causeway some of the prominent tunnel roaders would have been a bit chary of posing as leaders of public opinion They have caused thousands of the people’s money to be spent on a profitless, useless, and unwanted work. Now. some of these same people would spend millions on another piece of unwanted work, a tunnel road, and its appendages.— Yours, etc., H. L SHAW. June 15, 1936. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—New Zealand is yet but an infant. Fathers of sons and daughters scheme for the welfare of the family, so, when forming a plan for the wellbeing of a city or state a vision of the future should beam up before the mind. As I view the proposed Port Christchurch, I can see no other th in the converting of this city into a dirty hole. If the rivers Avon and Heathcote were of a swifter flow so as to keep their own channels free from mud, then a canal might be a good proposition: but the endless dredging required to keep such a canal clean and deep for shipping forbids the design from taking effect. A tunnel is far the best connexion for merchandise, although, because Lyttelton is so capable of congestion, I have thought that a cutting through the hill at the Bridle track bending toward Corsair Bay would perhaps be better than a tunnel. It would mean the filling and declaiming of the bay and then a road running from there to the wharvts. This could be carried out in less time than it would take to bore a tunnel, as there would be room for many more men to work. —Yours, etc., EGLON SERCOMBE. June 15. 1936. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —I should like to comment on the letter you published recently over the signatures of eight of our local business men. “Moto’s” remarks I fully endorse, and would go further. lam also a member of the Automobile Association, and have never received advice that this matter was to be discussed by members: therefore Mr L. M. Wilson’s signature has no more weight than that of a private individual. The same applies to Mr Beanland, as I am a ratepayer. I am also an organisation’s representative to the Chamber of Commerce, and have never had an opportunity of discussing this matter. Now, are the tunnel road supporters so afraid of a plebiscite that they have to stoop to such humbug. It appears to me that if it is not a case of vested interests, then it is a case of lack of vision. Did not our early settlers, though they arrived at Port Lyttelton, make provision for access to the sea direct by the creation of a canal reserve (now Linwood avenue)?

If some of these so-called business men would look up some of our old survey plans, they might find that our forefathers went even further than this. One would think that the present generation has no desire to provide for the future. Where would we all be if those who have gone before had been as short sighted? I remember seeing on one occasion a sketch of a proposed two-chain road to Lyttelton, drawn, I think, by Mr F. W. Freeman, showing a double stream of traffic both ways. What I should like to know is where they intended to park .all this traffic in the confined area at Lyttelton; It simply could not be done. Perhaps if some of our so-called leaders went for a world tour, and broadened their

minds, it would be helpful to them and an advantage to the community. I have seen at close quarters and investigation both the Suez canal and Panama canal, and say definitely that Port Christchurch at the estuary is a very minor engineering feat when compared with either. Those who have the interest of the province at heart must realise that we shall never have any big secondary industries or manufactories until we have a direct port Think of all the acres of cheap land adjacent to the estuary for factories, warehouses, etc. We should have had some of the big motor works now at Petone here with an estuary port, and what of the big tyre interests who were looking for a suitable factory site recently? Now, I am not a member of the Port Christchurch League at present, but after all this humbug I intend to join up and lend my weight, for the benefit of the province as a whole. Trusting that others will take up this very vital question.—Yours, etc., VISION. June 13, 1936.