THE OTAGO HARBOR BOARD'S FURTHER EMPOWERING BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 6031, 11 July 1882, Page 1

THE OTAGO HARBOR BOARD'S FURTHER EMPOWERING BILL.

The interrupted debate on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, in order that the House might go into Committee to consider the Otago Harbor Board's Further Empowering Eill, was resumed in the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon last. Mr Fish said :Mr Speaker-I shall detain the House for as short a time as possible in making the few remarks in reply to the objections that have been raised against the passing of this Bill. lam free to confess a strong conviction in anyone's mind—and I think it must bo shared in by the bulk of hon. members who have listened to the debate on this question—that nothing has been said to upset the stability of the ground on which I erected my demand for this loan. The hon. member for Port Chalmers has simply given express.on to a feeling which I kno* Las actuated that hon, gentleman for many years past—no doubt from a time as far back as the establishment of the Otago Harbor Board. The hon. member has been opposed to what that Board have done, and are still doing; but he went too far when he said that the operations of the Board had, from first to hut, been an egregious blunder.—(Mr Macandrew : I said for the most part.) It is beyond dispute that the Board's operations Jiitc demonstrated, so far as they have gone, the practicability of the scheme they are anxious to carry into effect. They have demonstrated that it is quite possible to bring ships up the Otago Harbor, to enable them to he at the Dunedin jetty. Anyone who knows the harbor of Otago and the port of Dunedin must be aware that that has been done. The hon. gentleman has said that one of the mistakes that the Board had made was that we had taken the wrong channel. I am free to confess that, as a layman, his opinion acted very strongly on my mind at the time the operations commenced. But engineering opinions are entirely against him. The engineer who made the plans for harbor improvement (Mr Simpson) was entirely of a different opinion, and his opinions are further corroborated by one of the most eminent engineers in the world (Sir John Coode), who says this : "The adoption by Mr Simpson of the northern, in preference to the southern channel, between Dunedin and Port Chalmers, is, 1 consider, judicious." Now, I think that entirely disposes of the hon. gentle man's contention that the wron?; side of the harbor was selected for the purpose of making this channel. Well, the hon. gentleman has gone further, and said that the mercantile community in Dunedin ai e opposed to this work being gone on with. He has made a statement which he cannot prove. I don't deny that some portion of the mercantile community of Dunedin are opposed to this work being gone on with • but I contend, sir, that it is no argument that because the people of Dunedin are not unanimous in regard to a certain work that work should be condemned, so long as a majority of the peoplo aie of opinion that the work should be carried on to its fulfilment. It has also been said by the hon. member for Port Chalmers that it makes no difference whether the goods are landed at Port Chalmers or Dunedin. I think it is nonsense for the hon. gentleman to assert that. If we can get the shif s up to Dunedin, instead of Port Chalmers, we secure two things. Firstly, we shall save 4s Gd per ton for freight charged on goods landed in Dunedin; and secondly, we shall secure to the mercantile public of Dunedin only one handling of the goods,_ which is of immense importance. Everyone in the House knows perfectly well that the serious damage which the goods undergo is due to the great hauling they receive ; therefore, by bringing the ships up to Dunedin we secure that these goods shall be only handled once. Sir, I always deprecate speaking of what individuals have said or written, who may not happen to be members of this House. The hon. member for Port Chalmers has made a speech, the bulk of which was drawn not from his own mind, but consisted of the words of some other person. He quoted at considerable length a letter published in Dunedin by a person named Mr Ritchie. Now I have great respect for that gentleman, and I have no doubt that so far as the management of his own business is concerned he is all that could be desired. But as for his being recognised as an exponent of public opinion on this matter, I utterly deny that. He is rot absolutely a member of the Chamber of Commerce in that City. That speaks volumes for the immense interest he takes in our affairs, and shows that we ought not to rely on his statements. Then the hon. gentleman has said that shore reclamation could be done cheaper than reclamation by means of dredging, Ii he bad quoted figures in support of that statement I should have had some respect for them; but when we know that the difference between reclamation from shore and dredging is a difference of Id tc 5i per yard it is at once evident that such an argument is extremely fallacious aud entirely unreliable. This is no speculative idea of mine. A portion of our endowment is so situated that it is a matter of impossibility to reclaim it from the sea. We have to reclaim it from the shore, and in the scheme I now lay before the Houso we propose to reclaim nine acres of land from shore reclamation for the reasons I have stated. But with regard to the other reclamation I propose it must be obvious that we must make a large saving of expense by using dredging material instead of shore material. Sir, it has also been said that we have been neglecting ths Lower Eaibor. That I deny entirely. If hon. members will refer to the Act passed in 1573 they will there see that it was laid down that the moneys proposed to be raised should be expended on the port of Dunedin. That I take to be the City of Dunedin itself, and not the Otago Harbor as a whole. Then the hon. member for Waitemata was very eloquent in his opposition to this Bill, and I have no objection to answer what he has said. But Ido say the hon. member was somewhat late in the attitude he adopted towards Bills for borrowing purposes, because only a week or ten days before the occasion on which I moved my Bill he said not one word against Auckland borrowing L1~»0,000 for the construction of a dock in that place. Had he been consistent ho would have raised his voice against that proposal. By not doing so he 1u.3 laid himself open to severe animadversion, especially when he opposed my Bill afterwards.—(Hear, hear.) The hon, member has not shown that consistency which his great talents and position in this House would lead one to expect from him. Another hon. member llooded this House with a burst of eloquence on this subject. I allude tolthe hon. gentleman who is the fortunate representative of a place called Inangahua. We have heard a great deal of special pleading ; but if everjthero was a case in which special pleading was shown more conspicuously than in another it v. as in this caee. The hon. member put me most forcibly in mind of the old saying " When you have got no case abuse the other side." His speech was simply a tissue of abuse and a misrepresentation of facts, and it gave an unfair and improper coloring to existing things. It forced me to the belief that he had been briefed in the case, and had been badly briefed. So long as the hon. gentleman confined himself to what he called the principle of the thing he was speaking on a subject which he might fairly talk upon, and ho was on tolerably secure ground. But directly he came to details in this matter he was conspicuous for his utter ignorance of the subject which he was discussing. With regard to the principle he laid down, viz., that it was the duty of the Government to take in hand works of this kind, to see that the money was expended properly, and to ascertain the ability om the part of the people to pay the interest that principle to my mind was as unsound and rotten as the facts he tried to impress upon us at a later period. It would have been an utter reversal of the policy laid down here In previous years, that local bodies should have the control of local affairs so long as they were able to bear the burden imposes upon them. What is the principle laid down throughout the Municipal Corporations Act? Does not that Act provide that, subject to the vote of the citizen?, bedies rrry borrow as much money as they think fit? ' i.c meaning of that is simply this—that it is .niended to give them the control of their own affairs as much us possible. And if you adhere to that you will do the thing which above all others will secure the judicious expenditure of money, and wiil secure economy in everything connected therewith. The hon. member asks If the Otago Harbor Board were to ignore the claims of the lender, what would the Colony say ? It is easy to ask a question of that kind ; but I would reply in this way—that when it

becomes even the remnant of a baio possibility for the Otago Harbor Board, or the people of Duntdm, to repudiate any just debt they have incurred, when that day arrives it will be a bad job indeed for tho Colony »f New Zealand - (cheers)- because l am so satusue.i i.'i:u. u ~iuh a thins were possible the day would ):e very near when the colony woulu have- to eiy 2>aruii. and have to do ,'ue s:uir>. It is nonsense to talk ;>i.out ■;■■ ha ' . ; -;, arc. i:enly shows tho vuter .gnoiv.i.ce or ti.e utter n^u.- , ccrity of the hon. vi.<> Ir-s t: c hardiness ;-ivmec:;, (Loud cheer,). S-. J :h>- k'n, '0 ud a. shs , -what was the u-»! oi ina'knv; -, eh ume! n- i-au-odiu for biiipr: tl..v, c'.dd i.o« come o.ct Lac v.. If the hen. gcrdlcrn ■■>.'. h'.'.u LaV-ica to m\ .u<,umenu he would have known that tnc JLuho: * Board had • ' e,e ■•iie to bring vessels up to Dunedia uuu could noo get over ihe b.'.r. What we want ':■< to make ike chancel m. suihcietit depth. We know as well as and hericr than tho hon. gentleman that v.hen the hrgo ste'vuurs with big bottoms, in which he appears to be such a pvoiicient in the knowledge, oi—(laughter),—when these come over the bac, as they will, we don't want them to come up to Duneain, and don't expect it. But we do want intercolonial and interprovincial steamers and vessels oi that kind to come up. However, the hon. gentleman, with all his principle and all his great desire to save tho Colony from undue expenditure, did not raise his voice against the Auckland Harbor Board Borrowing Bill any more than tho hon. member for Waiteinata did, though in ono part of his speech ia opposition to the Bill he speaks of tho mess or (default made by the Auckland Harbor Board. "What are we to think of the consistency of an lion, gentleman who opposes a Bill in this manner? Wo can only think of the utter unreliability of the statements made by him. (Hear, hear). What I have cor tended, and do contend now, is that while I recognise, and the Board recogiifee, the absolute necessity of deepening the Lar and tho channel from Port Chalmers in certain directions, what wo say is this : That it js not necessary to stop the works in tho Upper Harbor while we secure the fulfilment of those in the Lower. The two works should go on simultaneously, and while we are doing the one we should derivo the means to pay the interest on both Upper and Lower Harbor works. The bon. gentleman has also been kind enough to tell us with all his assurance that our trade would go to Lyttelton. Now, I do fancy the hon. member might have fairly left the consideration of that question to ourselves. If v/e can't protect ourselves against ourselves. I ?.:v. perfectly sure that nothing he can do h\ tho way of advice will prevent it from going in that direction. I don't wish to say a word against Lyttelton or its harbor, but it is a well-known fact- and I am surprised the hon. gentleman's knowledge did not lead him in the direction I •am now indicating—that it is quite a common thing for vessels like the Wakai-ipu, fcr instance, to stick on the sand there. Will ho say that that is an indication of the necessity of Lyttolton trade going to Dunedin? I should say not. However, I am quite ;-atidb:«i that Lyttelton can look out f r i self, and so can tho Otago Harbor Board, w bout tho instance of my hon. friend the member for Inaugahua. Everything he said wa? simply hearsay, and yet he comes to the House and wants you to upset my Bill. He says he has heard there has been an effort to form a company in England to induce the P. and O. boats to come here, but that was stopped because the boats could not get over the bar at the Otago Heads. Now I believo that only exists in the hon. gentleman's own diseased imagination. It has no substance in reality. No such company was ever contemplated, and no company was ever stopped from carrying out tuch an intention. .Statements of that kind ought not to be made, unless members are prepared to substantiate them. The hon. member also says : "It may bo said that the Lower and Upper Harbor works will be proceeded with simultaneously; that LIOO.OOO is to be expended on the bar, and L 160.000 nearer to Dunedin. They have already expended L 300,000 on it, and all they have got for it is five acres of reclaimed land, a quantity of plant, and an enormous debt." Where does lie get this information from ? He goes and examines a file of tho 'Otago Daily Times,' picks up a speech I made to the Board, and imports it into this matter. It is quite true I did state in Dunedin that from dredgings alone in the upper part of the harbor, which was originally intended to be reclaimed, there was a very much less quantity done than should have been doiae; but I'did not say there were only five acres reclaimed, becauso we have got twenty or twenty-five acres, and it is unfair that ho uhould pick up a portion of the speech and build a foundation upon It which is only noticeable for its rottenness of superstructure. He next asks—"What are they going to do with tho money? . . , If you read the local journals in Otago you will find they are not agreed themselves as to the estimate of the cost." Now, what is the good of making a Statement of that kind? The facts are these, and he had the facts in his hand in a circular I sout round to hon. members. After the original estimate was received the Board got an estimate from our second engineer and the two were put togothor, and on the dilference being divided the result was a fair estimate of the cost of the works. Tho hon. member has got muddled. He has read so much and given himself so littlo time to digest it that he has become completely muddled in his figures and facts. He then makes another statement. Ho says: " Having already expended this L3.j0,000 what havo they ? They have only the plant and a ditch or channel of 75ft wide, which is falling in fiom day to day, and filling up with sand." lleally tho hon. gentleman must have an immense amount of parliamentary audacity to give utterance to such a statement as that. I said that one of tho defects of tho channel was its narrowness, and that in consequence of tho constant twirling of the screws of steamers, and the fact that tho proper angle of repose had not been attained, tho sides were falling in. But for him to magnify that into the assertion that there was a general filling-up of the channel was entirely wrong and unfak. Then ho proceeded to say: "Another estimate was then fixed atLIGO,OOO, and another engineer said it would cosi L2of!,000." Thesa are really mis-statements; they are not facts. He is entirely misleading tho Home, not intuutionally, I believe, but from an over-h«,sty study of this question. Then he asks "What is ihe procedure of the Board ? They doa't havothdr plans prepared by a man of standing—a man who is known in the Australian Colonies or even in our own Colony of New Zealand, but a man about whom no ono knows anything—a Mr Barr, a very worthy man, I daresay ; and they expect that man, with a salary of L 350 per annum, to give them the necessary information for tho expenditure of L 300.000." Now, how does he dare abuse the professional reputation of a man who has laid these plana down. Is tho hon. gentleman a professional engineer himself or a mechanical engineer, to qualify him to make a statement of that kind, and to damn the reputation of a man who is ;tiperior in., ability in his profession to what the hon, gentleman is in his ? The plans were prepared by Mr Simpson, and I call upon Mr Macandrew to say that that gentleman, as a professional engineer, is second to none in this Colony. — (Mr Macandrew: Hear, hear) Wo did not rely on those plans, however. Wc got Sir John Coode to report upon them. I will not weary the House by reading from that gentleman's report, but the whole tenor of the roport from Sir John Coodo was a thorough endorsation of Mr Simpson's plans, and a vindication of the intelligence ho had used in laying them down. Ho what right has the hon. member to say we did not get proper professional advice? Then, with regard to his remarks about Mr Barr, I have no doubt that gentlemen will be very much obliged to him indeed for his reference to him. But I rau.-it inform the hon. member that tho plans are already prepared, and that all that is required. to be done now is simply supervision, and all that this " worthy man " is t -• do is to be consulted from time to time in his own office as to details in connection with the carrying out of tho plans. That is what we are paying him L3HO per annum for, and I defy the hon. member to say one word against him. What authority has ho on the subject ? No authority whatever. I will tell the hon, gentleman that bringing up the ships to Dunedin means a saving of Is fid on every ton of cargo, and will save double handling of the goods. Now, the hon. gentleman stated—this is tho last thing I shall trouble t\w House with—l shall mention this as showing the recklessness with which that hon. gentleman has made statements of a misleading character to this House, and that to imperil a Bill which I tell hon. gentlemen is of vast importance to the people I represent —he stated this that two vessels were endeavored to lie tuggedupor down by two steamers, but they stuck on tho bank. This was done before daylight in the depth of night ; it was done at that hour to prevent the public laughing at this wasteful expense. When I heard the hon. gentleman make that statement I was almost paralysed • (laughter)—l could not believe my ears. I ventured to get up in my place in the House, and witli considerable trepidation to inquire whether I was in order in making a statement. I have no hesitation in laying the statement of the hon. gentloman w;vs totally and entirely incorrect. The hon. gentleman ought to have taken the trouble to inquire into the truth or otherwise of the statement, and he might have come to myself and ascertained the facts. There was a vessel coming up the channel laden with sugar, The channel is only 7">ft iu width, and the dredge was in one part of it. At this place the vessel went too near the edge of the bank and stuck in the side of it. There was only one vessel. There were no good:; taken out at night, Mr Beaton: I saw it with my own eyes. Mr Fish: I repeat the statement I made.

which is strictly accurato and true. Tho lion. gentleman grossly insulted every member of tho Harbor Board by the sneering manner in which he referred to them as "dealers in soft_ goods and groceries." Have we come to this in the nineteenth century, when it is a disgrace to deal in soft goods and groceries? Dots the hon. gentleman stand on such a pedestal as to scorn gentlemen who get their living by soft goods mm groceries? -riiear, hoar). I was M>rry to luar such a statement com. from the hon. gentleman's lip*;. The men who have taken. ]!i'Vt in ilie direction of the ad airs of the Board, I u-: ,;, ieave to say, are as capable, to manage tho i\["i\'u-.\ >.■' the B.;nrd ;.'• i.uy men tho !r.;n. g-,.n ■■lorn .i\. dudd Lim-.elf pick out. Ho say;': " None of the : c:d I!!'')) of Otago have taken pari in tho ;.:''Vdr:' of the Board." I will tell yea what my t..,.M;<iv.;j-- of these men is. My experience is th: r /u 'vh-y preach a |,rout deal and do nothing. I h.'.ve never found in my experience of the Ci-iy of Dunedin • I havo never found cue out of ton men occupying a high Miuir.l po-i.iou who has taken a part in public affairs, but lie has turned our a rank fa'iuve. Tllj names of the men occupied on the -uan. aiv these—Keith flam-ay, « gentloni : v. io has hem Mayor of Dunedin, and occupied a commercial position of standing for ten years there; Robert Paterson is one of the grocer men—he sells pickles—still lie ia a good man ; llobcrt Wilson, a most sensible man ; Alexander Burt, an intelligent and successful manufacturer ; James Larnach—he is a member of the Board, representing the Chamber of Commerce. Generally, the members aie good practical men —common-sense men, and capable of carrying on tho affairs of that Board successfully. The hon. gentleman says the members of the Board have not a bed of roses, and aro not at one to carry out this work. There is only one dissentient on the Board to this work being carried out, and ho comes from the place my hon. friend Mr Macandrew has the good fortune to represent—Port Chalmers. lam free to confess that anything to construct works in the Upper Harbor would meet with that hon. gentleman's opposition. This opposition is simply centred in one Individual. The hon. member has referred to meetings of the Chamber of Commerce. I have already admitted there is a diversity of opinion with regard to what wo should do in respect to this work. The Chamber of Commerce admit that something must bo done in the upper part of the harbor. The hon. gentleman would have nothing done there at all. He says tho farmers complain of having to pay large freights on tbelr grain and frozen meat. I live in Otago, and I have never heard these complaints. lam sure tho hon. gentleman could not bo better acquainted with this matter than lam myself. He said, in conclusion, that wo should protect these people against themselves, ami prevent them from doing that which would confer a lasting injury upon themselves. I can tell tho hon. gentleman, in the name of the people of Dunedin and Otago, wo can thank him for nothing. When wo want the hon. gentleman's advice wo will a3k it, and I have no doubt ho will give it in the patriarchal manner in which he has indulged tho House with advice on this subject. 1 will merely say, in conclusion, that when this Bill is in Committee I shall be prepared myself ioarld a clause providing for the improvement of tho Lower Harbor, although 1 say this is rot necessary, becauso the Board have a lorn fide intention to carry that out, The works in the Upper and Lower Harbor can go on coni"mporansou.sly. No gentlemen who have spoken iii opposition to the Bill—l did not expect it from the hon, member for Inangahua —have shown how we are to pay the'interest If we expend L 150.000 on the Lower Harbor only. It would not bring in a tingle shilling to tho revenue of tho Board. If tho hon. gentleman had been uniformly impartial he would have addressed himself to this problem. It is like the attempt to make bricks without straw. If the hon. gentleman is prepared to show mo how that can be done I rdiall be glad to learn. I shall simply conclude by expressing a hope that the Houso will pass tho Bill with the alterations lam prepared to make. I beg to move that you do now leave the chair in order that the House may go into Committee on the Bill. Motion put and carried. In Committee Mr Fish moved that the word "three" in clause 2be struck out in order that the word " two " might be inserted. Mr Macandrew: My amendment is that " three " be struck out, with the viewof inserting the words " one hundred and fifty." I have no wish to take up the time of the House, and I am quite prepared to take it on the voices. 'lY.e word "three " in tho third lino of clause 2 was then struck out. Mr Fish: I move that the word "two" be inserted. Mr Weston: I propose to move an amendment that tho word " one " bo inserted. Mr Macandrew: I think L 150,000 is quite sufficient. As I said before, I think the sooner we come to a division upon it the better. Mr Seaton: I should like to seo a sufficient sum of money set apart out of loan for tho deepening of the Lower Harbor, so that vessels drawing 2Sft of water could safely enter tho Lower 'Harbor. I would ask whether the hon. gentleman would be disposed to set apart LI 00,000 for that special purpose—sever the vote of L 200,000 into two parts, LIOO,OOO for tho Upper Harbor, and LIOO.OOO for the Lower Harbor; an absolute setting apart a certain amount which must be used for that purpose—for the purpose of making the Lower Harbor take in large ships. I believe the hon. gentleman Sees the necessity for doing this work, and I want to know whether ho will appropriate a portion of that money for it. Mr Fish: lam prepared to add this new clause:—"Out of tho sum or sums of money raited under the authority of this Act, not less than one-half of such sum or sums shall bo expended on harbor works undertaken for tho improvement of tho bar at Otago Heads, so that vessels drawing 23ft of water can safely enter the harbor, and for the general improvement of the Lower Harbor." That is, that Lloo,ooo mubt be expended in the Lower Harbor from Port Chalmers down to the bar. I am perfectly willing that it should bo done. We arc already commencing that work. There id ample work on which to spond L 15.000 or L 20.000 round Port Chalmers. I would a»k tho Committee not to reduce tho amount below L 200.000. Mr Barron: I would not loavo the discretionary power in tho hands of the Otago Harbor Board which tho hon. member would leave in their hands. It should bo net apart for decpeuing and improving tho bar at the Otago Heads- -preventing in tho meantime any portion being used for any other object or purpose than that.

Mr Fish : I am perfectly certain wo will want L 150,000 to spend in the Lower Harbor, and probably more. Mr Barron: The hon. gentleman says for works in tho Lower Harbor. I think the House should insist that it shall not be for works in the Lower Harbor, but for improving and deepening the bar, Mr M. W. Green: Tho Board have evinced their sincere deriro to carry out the works, in the fact that tney have purchased a dredge costing L' 15,000; and their intention has been expressed over and over again. Although mistakes havo beon made by the Board in tho past, they have given evidence that it is their desiro to deepen the bar and to carry out tho works in the Lower Harbor in a bona d<!r. manner, so as to allow ships of largo tonnage to bo brought up to the wharves. For my own part, I am not in favor of the separation of this L 200,000 into two distinct portions. If the hon. gentleman in charge of tho Bill is willing, I do not object; but tho Harbor Board might bo safely entrusted to use this money.—("No.") I say that, in my judgment, I feel quite certain they ;.t'e fit to bo entrusted with the use of this money. We read of Auckland making mistakes, but there was not a work of objection to them borrowing Llfio,ooo. We havo heard of difficulties at Lyttelton and at Tirnaru, and of tioubles- at Oamaru —in fact, overywhero thore am the.se mistakes discovered, but that in simply what may be expected, Seeing that tho hon. member in charge of the Bill is willing to add a new clause, such as he has indicated—that is a very fair proposal—the Bill ought to be allowed to pass in tho shape he is now willing to put it, Mr Seaton : It ought to be done in this way—'hat so much be spent annually in a particular direction. lam .surprised at the silence of tho (I'verument Benches. In regard to the Board, we know that the chairman is a lighter agent. I say that the approaches to the jetty and to tho bar ought to be first improved before spending the money elsewhere, and I am surprised tho Government have not taken a stand in this matter. I think the Government should insist on the approaches to the Port Chalmers Harbor being improved. Mr Fergus: I am very happy to seo such a plethora of professional talent. The hon. member for Port Chalmers and his tad- ho leading and they following—endeavor to force the Board and their professional advisers to spend a sum of money at Port Chalmers. It is the old fight of Port Chalmers and Dunedin over and over again, I think this House is perfectly incompetent to deal with this subject; we have not sufficient professional men to deal with it. I think in a 1 harbor works wo must b.-. guided by such men as Sir John Coode and the gentleman who inaugurated the scheme of improvement at Dunedin and tho gentleman now in charge of the works. We should trust to tho honesty of the Board in the expenditure of this money, and not forco them to spend it in a particular way. The work will be not for tho benefit of Dunedin alone, but for the entire Province of Otago—the "hub "of the universe to the member for Port Chalmers. I believe this work will bo for tho benefit of Port Chalmers, and that it will improve tho commerce of Dunedin. —(Hear, hear.) Mr Sheehan : How these Otago people do love one another ! But there is a method in their madness. Tho policy seems to bo to keep all the row to themselves ; to get up a sham fight, and simply throw dust in the eyes of the rest of the members of this House. That may bo true

or it may not. At any rate, on this question I intend to vote with the member in charge of the Bill. I have been annoyed that we should make so much row about this proposal It anyone tells mo the Harbor Board aie not able to pay this loan that man is either mad or telling an untruth. The thing is ridiculous. Furthermore, I. agree with the proposal that it is a mistake to -.pend a lot of money in deepening the channel :.. the Upper Harbor, I quite ag-v.e with the proposal that by deepening that harbor and reclaiming iand you raise revenue. by which you will be able to pay the interest on thri lo:in and enable you to carry out tho improvement of the outer bar. Th.: people of Dunedin know their own wants best, if they can att'ord te pay the interest on this money for public purposes let them have it. Mr Macandrew: It is not the people of Dimedia who wul. pay this money. It is the Province of Otago ; the groi of wool and gr.in, and so forth. I feel that LIOO,OWHs of no varthly to Le expended on tin Upper }'arbor. Have entirely changed "ince the Board was constituted, and I have not the slightest doubt in my owu mind, though I should not like to bo dogma u ic, that it is not LIOO.OOO that will take up to Dunedin ships that we have now, drawing 23fv. of water, but LoOO.OOO. Tho wisest thing is to scheme all you can to got those ships he>-e, and if there is anything over after doing what I have previously proposed, well and good. The House cannot have read the new clause of which I gave notice. I will read it to refresh their memory. It is as follows :

That the words " three hundred thousand pounds" in tho second lino be struck out, and the words " one hundred and fifty thousand pounds" substituted in lieu thereof. It shall not be lawful for the Otago Harbor Board to expend any portion of the said LlfiO.OuO authorised to be borrowed under this Act upon any works or appliances other than such as shall enable ships of not less than 23ft draught of water to be taken alongside the presold, or any other railway pier, which may bo erected at Tort Chalmers. Provided, nevertheless, that after such depth of water as aforesaid shall havo boon obtained, tho Board may then apply the unexpended portion of tho said Llf)0,000 towards such improvements in the Harbor of Otago as the Board shall sec fit. Is not that a reasonable proposal ? If I thought LIOO.OOO would do any good towards improving tho Upper Harbor it would be different, but I am satisfied the Board would bo throwing that money away. Thoy ought to confine themsolves to getting the big ships iu. If this dredge is a success during the few days it has been at work, then in a few weeks we will get the required depth, and the Board will have the whole expenditure in tho Upper Harbor. All I want is, that wo shall compel them to devote the wholo of their energies and moans to getting a draught of water at tho railway pier. Mr'Turnbull: Make it L 200.000, instead of L 150.000. Mr Macandrew: I am not particular to the amount.

Mr Fish: I would like to point out that the roinarks of the lion, member are simply ftpecious sophistry. He Is simply soekmg to delude the Committee into the belief that it may possibly l)e only three weeks or 80 before the place is drudged, and that therefore we shall have all this money to spend in tho Upper Harbor. He knows that another week may see that siltod back again, and then we have to get a retaining wall across the no:th channel; and ev»n if that contingency does not arise it will take nine weeks to dredge a channel sufficiently deep to allow big vesstls to come alongside the pier, And to il* thoso works at LI SO.OOO will entail L 9.000 interest per annum, and from these works wo shall not get a shilling ot revenue to pay that intererst; bo that if this proposition stood alone I would withdraw my Bill at once. But let us prosecute the works contemporaneously and tben wo shall he gradually creating revenue in tho Upper Harbor that will enable us to pay the interest on both. To carry tho hon, gentleman's amendment simply means shelving this Bill. I won't agree to it. If his amendment is not carried, and mine is, both objects will be achieved, and I shall be satisfied. I consent to this alteration solely in deference to my hon. friend.

Mr Hurst: I have only two or three words to say. It has been said that I doubt tho power of the City or people of Dunedin to pay the interest on this money. Now I have never tried to create ouch an impression. All I said was this—that when they came to this Houso and asked for the money tho understood feeling was this: "If you don't give us the money we will throw up tho whole thing, and then tho Colony will have to take it over." I want the hon. member to introduce iuto this .Bill a clause that will satisfy the House that the people of Dunedin desire this work, and are willing to bo taxed to pay the interest. That is all I seek, and I think it is a reasonable proposal, and ono which I ask the hon. momber to approach frankly, and then he will get my asuistanco. It is useless for him to refer to my action and to my silence in regard to tho Auckland Harbor Board Bill. I could givo a satisfactory reason for that if I chose. My fooling, however, is that we should have a commission of experts to devise all harbor works of tins kind. Even at a great cost to tho Colony I believe it would pay us to send home to England and get two cr three men, removed from local prejudices, to do this, and thus prevent the waste of money that is going on, and say what works were of necessity and were wiso to be undertaken by the Colony. Originally this Board said they only wanted LUOO,OOO. Now they come and ask for L 200,000 more, and I venture to predict ihat in another two years they will want L 300.000 or L-100,000 more still. If tho hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill had sought to put a rating cLuse into the Auckland Haibor Board Bill I would have voted with him. As for the dredge, I hope it will be a success, but my opinion is that it will bo a perfect failure Mr Bracken: I merely wish to montion, Mr Hamlin, to hon. members who have not been in Dunedin and have not had an opportunity of knowing tho geographical position of the place, that thero are not two ports or three ports There is only one. Tho remarks of the hon. member for Port Chalmers would lead hon. members to believe that there are two ports and two Heads, and that this was tho causo of the rivalry between Port Chalmers and Lunedin. But the interests of Dunedin are the interests of Port Chalmers—(cheers)—and it is the interests of Dunedin to have the bar deoponed, so that commerce may bo improved and fostered, and large ships brought in ; and vhereforo all this talk about Dunedin vcr.n/s Port Chalmers is simply a waste of time. I trust the Committee will bco their way to pass this Bill without more talk.

Mr Barron: I hope tho Committee will not recede from tho one extreme which has already been initiated, of spending all tho money in the Upper Harbor, to the other extreme proposed by tho hon, member for Port Chalmers, of spending the money at tho Heads. It is absolutely necessary that both works should proceed simultaneously. I hope the Committee will at on co go to tho vote, othorwiae the hon. member stands a chance of losing his Bill altogether. I hope, moreover, we will give the hon. member tho L 200.000 asked for. The Colonial Secretary (Hon. T Dick): It appears to mo that the Harbor Board have shown their strong desire to dredge tho bar by having K*«nt Home, at an expense of 1/10,000, for a dredge for that purpose. That seems to me a distinct admission that the Board desire to have a bar before everything. But it is also necessary thai something should bo done towards dredging around the wharves at Port Chalmers in order to let ships that cross the bar get to them. The proposition of Mr Fish is surely a fair and just on*, and I trust the Committee will see their way to accept the amendment he now proposos. Mr Petrio: I cannot agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Port Chalmers. It seems to mo that it asks us to fulfil tho functions for which the Harbor Koard was created If they are not abla to fulfil those functions themselves let U3 abolish the Board altogether. All wo have to study, I maintain, is whother they have sufficient assets as against the proposed loan. I myself am perfectly satisfied as to that; and, until wo have affirmed the principlo of one Government to undortako all works of this kind, I protest against the principlo laid down in Mr Macandrew'a amendment.

Captain M'Keuzio : It is not my intention to detain the Committee long. (Mr Fergus : Hear, hear). I have heard during this discussion several references to Dunedin and tho Harbor Board, and especially by tho hon. member for Greymouth (I think it is), who spoke on this subject. He seems to think that this only affects the people of Dunedin. Tho hon. member for Waitemata also seemed to hint that the thing only concerned. Dunedin, and said its people ought to consent to being rated to carry out" this work. It does iu a way concern tho people of Dunedin ; that that harbor boloags to the Province of Otego, and not to the people of Dunedin at all. Several members have referred to Lyttelton, but they havo forgotten to mention tho Bluff harbor, which is as as fino an outlet aB any.- (Laughter and cheers.) Mr Taiaroa : I havo considerable knowledge about the formation of the harbor for a long time past. The position of the river and mouth of the harbor was far better before tho Harbor Board had anything to do with it. I don't complain of tho power being given to tho Harbor Board to borrow money for this work. But I do complain of tho way in which they have been carrying on tho work. In the year IH7N or 1871) Sir John Coode came to meand asked me about the character of tho river. We had a conversation about this work, and I asked him what his opinions were. He told me that if the Board continued tho work in the way they were doing, and confining thenlabors to the, upper portion of tho harbor, that within four or fivo years they would close up tho bar of tho outer harbor entirely. And to show that his statement waß correct, I may eay that the opening with the outer mouth of tho harbor, between Waiparapaia and another

point, has been gradually getting narrower. I therefore trust the hon. gentleman in charge ot the Bill will agree to have half of the money set apart specially for the work at the outer heads -at the bar—and the harbor below Port Chalmers. I think it is necessary that the outer harbor and bar should be improved first, and then probably vessels would be able to go up to Dunedin I\ir Seaton : One hon. member secerned to think that I was insinuating that some of the members of the Board had been guilty of malpractices. I did no such thing. I simply eaiu that the chairman of the Board was a lighter agent, and that Board had for a long t : ';nc refused to do anything towards the approaches to the jetty. There aro two lighter agents on the Board whose duty and interests art not one. The fact remains that nothing has been done towards those approaches. I should like to refer also to what the hon. member for lnangahua said in regard to a vessel running aground. Mr fish : I rise to a point of order. The question is whether the word "two" should be inserted in the second clause.

Mr ltutherford : I regret that wo should have wasted so much time on what really after all has been too much of a personal character, and forgetting the work before us. I should vote for leaving out the clause dividing the L 200.000. I believo the people are fully dotermiued to deal with it on a broad ground, and require no injunction from this House. Many hon. members know comparatively little of this question. The hen. member in charge of the Bill is prepared to accept this clauss. I should prefer to see that highly respectablo body of men carry out this work in their own way. Mr Weston: A good deal has been said by the hon. member in charge of the Bill about the remarks I made last Thursday. I wish we had someone who could have enlightened us more than the hon. gentlemon. I stand here knowing as little how this money is to be expended as before he moved the reading of this Bill. Whero are his estimates ? Where are his plans ? We know nothing about it. One hon, member said I know more about flogging than harbor boards; but whether I know about flogging or not, this Ido know: when lam asked to come here and see that public money is not wasted, I know I have a perfect right to make my views heard and know what I am doing before I agree to vote for the expenditure of L3Q0.00O; and whether I cast reflections on the hon. member for Dunedin South, and whether ho feels uncomfortable, I don't _ care. The principle of the Bill, I apprehend, is under consideration now. What does that mean? Whether the whole or a part of the work should be done. I have a right to oxpress my views on this matter. I was going to ask if you will allow me to trespass in vindication of what I said. I was chargod by the hon. member In charge of tho Bill with speaking disrespectfully of a section of the community, and I think I have a right to repudiate such a thing. I have sense enough in my head to know that one man la as good as another—no matter what trade or occupation he pursues. lam ashamed of such an insinuation. Let me talk about this L 200.000. What does tho whole thing mean ? It simply means this: if we pass this L 200.000 or L 150.000 they must come to this House again.—(Hear, hear.) Mr Hurst: What did he say ? Most truly we have been threatened in this House if we do not pass this Bill ■ Mr Fish ; Will the hon. gentleman show how we are threatened by tho Otago Harbor Board in this matter!—(Cries of " Order.") Mr Hamlin (Chairman of Committees]: I have not heard any threats held out. I nope the hon. gentleman will not now refer to a former part of the debate. Mr Hurst: What I said was that it was understood outside—at all events It was understood quite distinctly that the Board would resign if the money was not forthcoming. Mr Weston: I only referred to the remarks of my hon. friend the member for Waitemata. I say this—if we sanotion this money now—upon their own showing we shall be asked for further aid.—(Hear, hear.) The momber for Waitemata (Mr Hurst) has stated that there is no knowing where the thing will end and what liabilities this Colony will be launched in. The hon. member came down for L 300.000 upon certain estimates, which showed that the works to bo done would cost L 270.000, and now, when the Government are agreeable to put the stamp of the Colony upon this Bill to the extent of L 200,060, what does he say ? Why, this: That there is to be LIOO.OOO Mr Fish: I rise to a point of order. I contend the hon, member is out of order in disousslng the whole of the Bill. We shall be hero interminably if this kind of thing is allowed. This discussion should have taken place on the motion to go into committee. The hon, member is discussing the whole Bill, which will involve another speech by me to reply to the speech he is making. The Chairman said the hon. member for Inangahua must confine himself strictly to the question before tho Committee. Mr Weston: I apprehend it is our duty to satisfy ourselves whether "two" or "throe" shall bo inserted, and I can only say that by their own showing the former will be insufficient. They propose to divide this L 200,000 into halves. They propose to give half to the lower works, and half to the Upper Harbor works. According to their own showing LIOO.OOO will not be enough for either work. The hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill said that L 150,000 would be required for the Lower Harbor, and what was the estimate of tho works of the Upper Harbor ? L 160.000. Mr Fish : It is incoircct. I rise to a point of order.

Mr Weston: I will not contradict tho hon, gentleman, but I heard him say bo. If these works are gone on with simultaneously—a certain amount spent here and a certain amount spent there, what will be the rosult? They must have a quantity of incompleted works on their hands when this loan is expended—that ia inevitable. Improve your Lower Harbor, get a good entrance to Port Chalmers, and then como down to us and we will give you more for the Upper Harbor. Make your jetties at Port Chalmers accessible for large vessels, and let the farmers have an opportunity of sending away their produce at a cheap rate.—(Hear, hear,) Then como down for more money, and I have no doubt we will give the aid. Ido say that to be tinkering at one end and another end with this small sum will do no good, and wo shall just find ourselves in tho position mentioned by the hon. member for Waitemata—we shall in all probability have these people coming down to us again with a threat, and say " Now, then, if you do not give us more money we will simply pitch the whole thing up, and on to your shoulders." That is what will bo tho outcome of it. Let tho work of the Lower Harbor be made porfect. It being 5.30 p.m., the House then ad journed.