The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1932. THE VICTORIA WHARF.

Evening Star, Issue 21037, 26 February 1932, Page 8

The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1932. THE VICTORIA WHARF.

Early this month wo hazarded the view that the bodies most concerned with the economical working of the wharves had virtually passed a vote of want of confidence in the Otago Harbour Board. Those bodies had been asked to back the board up in its conflict with the Railways Department over rail connection with the Victoria wharf. The upshot is surely disconcerting to the board. The bodies first met separately and displayed an attitude strongly critical of the board in the matter. Finally they met collectively and passed a resolution anything but flattering to the board. This resolution condemned the board’s action in laying rails on the Victoria wharf with the full knowledge that the charge for haulage via Wickliffe street would be prohibitive, and recommended that a committee of independent experts be appointed to go into the matter of the most suitable and economic rail access to the water front and also the most suitable position for overseas import and export wharves. The bodies represented at the meeting which passed the above motion were the Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers’ Association, Otago Importers and Shippers’ Association, Stock and Station Agents’ Association, and Grain Merchants’ Association. The list is an impressive one, for it represents the main body of those ashore making use of the port. It would, in fact, be difficult to compile a more comprehensive tally of the board’s customers. In effect they suggest that an outstandingly important piece of the board’s business be taken altogether out of the hands of the board and be decided by outside experts. But instead of this proposal being received with hauteur on the ground of unwarranted intrusion in a vital question of Harbour Board policy, the chairman’s introductory remark was that “ he saw no objection to the appointment of a committee of independent experts to go into the question.” Such a tame surrender of the principle of the board itself administering the affairs of the port, as it was set up to do, seems to argue a lack of confidence in itself which is not reassuring to those concerned in the interests of the port. However, there were some members, notably Mi Sharpe, who disapproved of the Chamber of Commerce dictating the policy of the board, and in the meantime no such surrender of independence is being made. Last night’s discussion emphasised the fact that several board members disapprove of the board laying rails on the Victoria wharf not only before arranging with the Railways Department for a connection, but in spite of the department’s strong opposition backed by a prohibitive toll charge. The board’s action can only be construed as an attempt to force the department’s hand, and it looks as though this attempt has failed rather dismally. Then, when outside reinforcements were sought, the aid was of so negative a character as to constitute yet another rebuff. It may be that the drawbacks urged by the board to the scheme put forward as an alternative—utilising the Birch street route from the railway goods yards to a deep-water frontage at the Kitchener street wharf—will convince those outside bodies which suggested it that it would be uneconomic, if not altogether impracticable; but wo doubt whether the objections on the score of expense will be accepted without further examination. The board now pleads impccuniosity for shelving the Victoria wharf connection, and really the £7,000 shrinkage of revenue in the past four months and the growing debit balance at the bank would warrant the board in staying its hand in pushing a scheme of whose benefits some members evidently entertain grave doubts. It is now stated that, even were the way clear otherwise, the board could not find the £4,000 necessary for the railway connection via Wycliffe street, also that if it were made there would bo practically nothing to transport over it, judging from present conditions. • The whole matter has been left to a sub-committee with apparently a twelve-month interval in which to deliberate. Necessary though this course may be for financial reasons, it seems a spiritless conclusion for the time being on a rather vital matter. Possibly in the interval the board might do well to make its peace with those critics whose aid it sought, and then present a united front to the Government to ascertain whether the Railway Department has been acting in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, and, if so, to secure legislation to give the authorisation already secured the practical value it now lacks..