THE PORT CHALMERS DOCK.

Evening Star, Issue 11896, 26 May 1903, Page 3

THE PORT CHALMERS DOCK.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In your leading article on Saturday you say “the only chance, and we do not fed any assurance that the chance is ‘ a good one, of the construction of a big dock within a terminable period would be that the Trust should be taken over by the Harbor Board, and a special loan raised on the credit of that body.” We have had the assurance of several members of the Board that they do not desire this state of things, hence our present endeavor to assist the Dock Trust in financing this scheme. To anyone acquainted with the business of the Port Chalmers borough, the attjtude and style of your leaders on the dock question pass comprehension. Hard as you find it to believe, still it is a fact that the increased consumption of water will go well towards making up the deficit caused by Prohibition. It is not, as yon put it. “ the number of gallons tie Port Chalmers citizens pour down their throats daily," but it is consequent on the increased amount supplied to the shipping. Prior to the new water mains being laid, not only did the higher levels suffer by getting an intermittent supply, but vessels cbuld not get the amount required in the time at their disposal. The reverse is now the case, the water supply is never cut off from the higher levels, and it can be supplied at all the wharves simultaneously. The gross income from water in 1901 (before increased supply) was £1.856 17s 3d; for the year 1903, £2,324 8s 9cL There is no diversity of opinion in Port Chalmers as regards the necessity of a larger dock, and the majority of the citizens think that as the local people will receive the greatest benefit it* is incumbent on them to he prepared to pay something towards the undertaking. A few there be who are equally desirous of seeing a large dock, but who think the man in the back blocks should contribute equally with themselves. They are not likely to die of enlargement of the heart, and fondly imagine the dock will come in due course, when Otago recognises that ship repairing has gone elsewhere. Although this question is of greater importance to Port Chalmers, still one has only to watch the arrival of morning trains to see that there are as many Dunedin workmen intersted as in Port Chalmers, and one marvels how ‘ yon belittle any endeavor to retain the ship-repairing headquarters in Otago Harbor.—l am, etc., Sec. P.C. Progressive League. May 25. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Port Chalmers people have good grounds for complaint at the treatment they have received from the ‘Star’ re the above. Some time ago, when it was mooted to hand over the Dock Trust functions to the Harbor Board (so that the latter body could construct the dock), the adverse criticism caused this project to be relegated to the background, and you, sir, contributed your full quota to that result Now it appears that you wish it handed c-ver to the Board. It might have helped somewhat to the solution of the difficulty if you had been able to assure us that the Harbor Board were agreeable to do so, and proceed, with the construction of a dock without unnecessary delay. We have it on good authority that the Harbor Board are not in favor of any such measures. Now, as to whethe rthe Port Chalmers borough will be in a position to pay, if necessary, £I,OOO per annum, without increasing the present rate of 2s Bd, you are quite prepared to take the statement of yonr anonymous correspondent rather than the deliberate statement of those appointed by the Borough Council to deal with this question. Yon seem to think it highly amusing that the increased revenue from water has done away with the necessity of increasing the rates on account of the loss of license fees and the lessened value of hotel property. A little inquiry would have solved • this seeming paradox. Two years ago new water mains were laid, and the borough was able to adequately supply the shipping and the residents on the upper levels, with the following result. For comparison, I give you the gross income for two years before and two years after:— 1900, £1,773 16s lid; 1901, £1,855 17s 3d; 1902, £3,162 18s lid; 1903, £2,324 8s 9d. Now, sir, as the loss of license fees and the net reduction in the valuation this year will mean a falling-off in the income of about £314, it is apparent that the increased revenue from water more than compensates for the loss caused by Prohibition. It will also interest you to leam that the net revenue of the borough available after paying interest charges has increased from £1,264 in the year 1895 to £2,133 for the year just ended. Last year we started with a credit balance of £125, and although we had an extraordinary expenditure of £290 in connection with the Coronation celebrations, we finished the year with a credit- of £49 l—a satisfactory result, especially as the rates are 3d less than they have been since 1894. We have loan,s failing due in 1905 and 1908. By these we shall make a saving in interest of £750. Now, take the net decrease anticipated this year from the net income available for last year; £2,138 minus £514 equals £1,824, plus £750, equals £2,574, without allowing for any further increase of the borough valuation. It follows from this that we would be able to pay the £I,OOO and still be in a better position than we were in 1895. As to the wisdom of the borough undertaking the responsibility, we believe it would, be perfectly justified, os the dock means permanent prosperity locally, and not a little to Dunedin, as a considerable number of your ratepayers are now interested. A few years ago all the local fleet could use the present dock ; now the Union Company own five ships (and more are building), which cannot utilise the existing structure. It is quite safe to assert that long before a new dock can possibly be built not a vessel in the intercolonial trade will be able to dock here, and the unpleasant prospect faces us of seeing the trade which has grown up during the last thirty years gradually dwindling away. Mr Hay estimates the cost of a suitable dock at £70,000, and by way of comparison we learn that a hardwood dock of similar dimensions is being built at Port Adelaide for £45,000. Taking into consideration the exceptionally favorable circumstances which exist locally, it is evident that Mr Hay’s estimate is correct. If, however, your contention as regards cost is correct, the best thing we can do is to build a timber structure, as the saving in interest would pay the cost in less than twenty years.—l am, etc., ~ Councillor. May 26.