THE HARBOR WORKS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 183, 16 August 1888, Page 2

THE HARBOR WORKS.

THE SITUATION. ALL HANDS EEOEIVE NOTICE. After the ordinary business of the Harbor Board had been concluded on Tuesday night the Chairman called members’ attention the Parliamentary report and evidence, a copy of which was lying on the table. The evidence would take all night to read, but there it was and they must deal with it somehow. Mr Dickson: I beg leave to move that our Secretary reads it. The other night we had a very flowery speech from one of our members about out-Heroding Herod. lam only sorry that he is not here now to hear the report read. I think it is only right to read the report and the evidence upon which this is founded. Mr Chambers : The gist of the the thing is in the report of the Committee. Mr Clark: I do not think reading the evidence will make any alteration. Mr Dickson : Would you not like to hear the evidence? Mr Matthewson: The wonderful evidence. Mr Chambers said like other evidence there were all sorts of contradictions. Mr Townley, if no one else would move in the matter, desired to make some remarks. He had read the report and evidence, and he considered that after the many charges made they were acquitted. He had read it carefully through, but found nothing about misappropriation of funds or “ cooking ” of accounts. That seemed to him to be disposed of altogether. Mr Matthewson said it came in in the Validation Act. Mr Townley did not think it did. The report called for some comment, as it placed the Board in an uncomfortable position, because upon that a Bill had been framed. He went on to read the clause referred to, when Mr Matthewson said the first was more important. Mr Townley: What?—that the works already carried out are practically useless— Mr Matthewson : Yes ? Mr Townley : If left as they are. Suppose Goode’s scheme had been carried out nearly half way ? The Chairman thought Mr Townley should continue his comments. Mr Townley, continuing, said the matter was one of great urgency. The Bill to his mind, was very damaging to the district. One clause provided for a Board of Trustees to be appointed by Government to take Sossession of the funds of the Board and eal with them by investments as they thought proper. So far as he could gather from the report there was not a single sentence which justified this libel upon the Harbor Board and the people of this district, There was no reference to misappropriation of funds or any neglect on the part of the Board iu their duties to the ratepayers and this step was certainly most uncalled for, It was sometimes well to look back and see how they were situated at the present time, and what hopes had been held out to them. When they commenced these works Sir George Whitmore in introducing the Bill into the Legislative Council on the second reading said it had been examined by the Local Bills Committee which was unanimous that the Bill should be carried, and in another place Sir George Whitmore said the district was heavily handicapped, and was entitled to this small assistance. It already contained 420,000 sheep, and there was no outlet for export until we had a harbor. In the report Bit George now says, three years later, there are only 250,000 sheep in the district, Sir John Coode, he said, after examining the harbor, thought for an expenditure of £200,000 an excellent breakwater could be made. The unanimous opinion of all masters of vessels working on the Coast was that there was no engineering difficulty, and provided funds were obtained the harbor would be a success. It the districts had been treated as other districts had been it would probably be able to depend upon rates alone. They had to do things for themselves which other districts had had done for them. No land fund had been given them, or what had accrued had been taken for general revenue. The crown lands in the district would remain unsaleable unless the harbor were made. A little further on (continued Mr Townley) Sir George said that the Government were favorable to the endowment being granted and if that were not sufficient to get on, without placing too heavy a burden upon themselves, next session the Government would give a money grant. The sympathy of the Government was with the grant. Unless the district went ahead a little a large area of Government land would be useless, and this could not be utilised unless the harbor were made. He (Mr Townley) thought that after pleading in that manner for the district’s support, and their depending upon promises held out by the Government, they went on with the work, clearly led by Sir George Whitmore in his statement to expect some assistance. He was the Minister who had charge of the Bill, and he got it carried through the Upper House. Then compare his statements of the 21st October, 1834, with those of the 14th June, 1888. There was a great difference. He then made charges which a gentleman of Sir George Whitmore’s position should not have made against a local body, without proof, and after leading them to believe in 1884 that they should have every possible assistance required. He had said the Government must be prepared with information as to the way the funds were invested, and also insinuated that the Board was composed of men who might be betrayed into all kind of errors—that in small centres it was impossible to pick a competent body of men. Under these circumstances, said Sir George Whitmore, and especially as the credit of the colony was not in a flourishing condition, care should ba taken that there was no malversation of funds or anything else. That (said the speaker) was the way Sir George sustained the credit of the colony by publicly circulating slanders concerning a district of which he was a ratepayer, when he might have had correct statements made to him. Protecting thecolony’s credit I—making wild statements against a body which he three years previously urged to carry out a certain work, and offered every assistance. That was the way they had been entrapped. The Committee's recommendations were most unjustifiable, based on the evidence. Sir George Whitmore had favored them with a letter in the Press a short time ago, to the effect that he had willingly paid the rate, and, in fact, was the first wfio bad done so. Qu reading that letter one would suppose that everything was going on satisfactorily, and in the evidence before them he said that he did not think that the harbor would be of the slightest benefit to his district. He had understood from a communication made to him by the Chairman, that they were willing to exempt his (Sir George’s) district from rates. In reply he Wad »aid to the Chairman ; “Certainly we do not want to do you any harm or avoid payment of rates which at present have to be levied. What we want is to be placed in the position that whatever you de in the future you will do entirely at your own risk.” When the work was started (Mr Townley continued) there was a good deal of discussion about the site, and the members, with the exception of himself, were unanimous. Messrs Didkson and Matthewson : No. Mr Townley challenged any member to say that there was a member besides himself who objected to the plans being sent to Wellington, Captain Tucker (who was not then a member of the Board) also said he did not give his assent.

Mr Townley: Mr Matthewson proposed that the plans be sent to Wellington, and Mr Dickson seconded. Then did they oppose ? Mr Dickson : Yes, strenuously ; always Mr Townley : If they did they did it in the dark. I say they both supported it. The speaker, continuing : Sir George WhitSore said in his evidence that to get to isbbrne •< you have to climb the steepest of bills in one part and at points yon have to go at low water from half a mile to two miles amongst papa rocks to the danger of your life.” He also said there was very little settlement in the back country because “there are no roads except the tracks we have made at our own expense.” Sir George was a very generous settler I If Coode's scheme had been carried out, according to him, the Government would have made toads up the coast; but uo otic over heard

such nonsense from a gentleman of Sir George Whitmore’s standing. Mr Thompson, member of the Parliamentary Committee, had asked the question whether tnere was any divisions on the Board. Mr Graham had answered “ Unfortunately so.” If there was a division on the Board was that any reason why the works should be stopped? If they discussed matters there and exercised their independent judgments, was that any reason why the Board should be treated as they were? If a division of opinion amongst them was a crime what about the House of Assembly ? At the present moment did they agree on every subject ? He never heard such a piece of nonsense in his life. This division was held out as a reason why the Gisborne Harbor works should be taken out of their hands and the money vested in a Board of Trustees. Mr. Ormond’s evidence was too long to go into, but the substance of it was that as long as they did not rate him it was all right. ‘Do not. rate me and you can go on.” It was not in Napier. If it was it would be all right. He objected to pay rates. Well he (Mr Townley) wondered why the people of Poverty Bay did not object to pay Propery Tax. Did they get any benefit from that ? The whole of it went to partially pay the loss on the railways, and Poverty Bay had to pay £3OOO a year for that purpose alone and yet were the people not able to manage this business themselves ? Sir G. Whitmore had remarked that the Borough of Gisborne was primarily responsible for the work. The fact was the Harbor Board and the Municipal Council were the same body, and the Board was carrying on at an expense of £5O a year. They had to build wharves, and were anxious to get out of debt. Then arose this agitation. The first communication was from the County Council, urging the reconstruction of the Board, so that the County Council might have representation upon it. This was at first objected to by the Borough Council. Mr Rees came upon the scene and urged that such a work would be a great benefit to the district. The result was that the late Board was swept away, and a new one put in its place to carry on this work. The reason he remarked on this was that this Bill provided for limiting the radius in which to take the votes whether the work should go on or not. To h*s mind that was one of the greatest injustices inflicted upon them. He hoped the Board resent it. Another grave charge since the works commenced' was that the Union Company had found it to their profit to call in at the coast, and therefore, according to Sir George Whitmore that was a crime for which the Board were responsible. Because these boats served the coast the works should not be carried out any further. To bring the matter thoroughly before them he had a proposition to make, the urgency for which ho would ask the Board to consider. The Bill had been dratted which adopted the report and carried out the recommendation pt the Committie, and proposed taking all e funds except the SinkingEund and the bands nt independent trustees, “ The Gisborne Harbor Board would reapectfully submit to the Government that the enquiry made by Mr Higginson, and also the evidence taken by the Committee of the two Houses, has failed to show anv dereliction of duty on the part of the Boa“rd in administering the money of the ratepayers, and the Board insists upon its statutory right to continue its expenditure until at least the amount has been expended, which the present rate of Id and Ad will cover. The Board feels that the limit of £65,000 imposed by the Aot of 1887 without their being consulted was an invasion of its rights, and ought to be removed at once, and that the rating district should remain as at present constituted. As the Board has only sufficient funds to carry on the works to the end of the present week, without exceeding the limit imposed by an Act passed in the General Assembly, it Strongly urges on the Government immediate action to prevent heavy loas to the ratepayers by the stoppage of the works, as well a grave reflection on the colony at large.”

He would ask them, very seriously to con. sider the situation. It was not a question on which there should be any division of opinion, and' it was time they took some stand. The radius question was a new one, aud one the Board ought to resist being imposed upon them. A statement of accounts that had been prepared showed that they would have to stop the works at the end of the week it some' such course were not carried out. The position was a very serious one. Mr Chambers seconded. Mr Townley had proved the Committee was a hostile one, and therefore the result was all the more pleasing to the Board. The charges made against them by irresponsible people, and for political purposes were found to be all moonshine. He thought the time had come for the Board to take a proper stand on the question. If the works were stopped on Saturday next it would mean an immediate and heavy loss to the ratepayers on account of the mohinery. If the Bill were shelved the works would have to be stopped immediately, and he considered Mr Townley’s proposal might even be made stronger, as it would force their situation upon the Government, whose Bill was a. most extraordinary one. After the Committee had decided they were not guilty of malversation they had put in very stringent clauses to prevent them handling any more funds. He thought the imposition should be resisted. They should be quite able to manage their own affairs. They had got good interest on the money they had invested, aud they should be quite as competent in the future. He was entirely averse to the proposal to decrease the rating area which he believed was upsetting the constitution of the Board, and opposed to the conditions on which the money was got from the lenders.

Mr Clark agreed with the motion, though he thought they should go further and state that the ratepayers would be inclined to hold the Government responsible for their action He should like to let the Government know that they (the Board) believed the Government were exceeding their powers. He thought Government had no right after allowing them to borrow money on certain terms to refuse to allow them to spend it The ratepayers of the district were still responsible for the money. It had been bor. rowed for the purpose of building a break, water and the Government said they must not spend it. He should be entirely against taking a vote of the ratepayers-he thought it was an insult to the district to recommend **■ fir George Whitmore’s statements at the two different periods mentioned, showed that he would take whatever course suited him—his two statements showed he had two sides to his character. Mr Ormond always held the reputation that he did not pay any: thing if he oould help it. Mr Matthewson had not had time to read the report right through, but he contended that on the main points Sir George Whitmore and Mr Ormond were perfectly correct—the money had been borrowed on the understanding that we should be able to get large vessels inside, that would take our wool and open up a trade in froxen meat, If the present scheme had been laid before the people not nine or ten would have voted for it. He would challenge them to go to the vote now and he would pledge himself that nine out of ten would vote against it the works should be hnng up rather than throw money away. It was an imposition, almost a deliberate swindle, on the ratepayers of Poverty Bay. It was quite contrary to what the people voted for. He said they were getting no harbor at all and were endangering what they had. It was a great come down from the original plan, for them to be struggling .to get the Omapsre alongside.

Mr Townley: That is onlv half the work. Mr Matthewson did not think they would get more than 21 feet at the full length. Oap. tain Sinclair summed up the whole question when he said they were fencing in the beach. He hoped the matter would again oome up be. fore them, when they would be better able to go through the evidence. With regard to Mr Townley’s references to himself, he said emphatically that he had not agreed to the present scheme. The plana were thrown dQwr, on the table, and Mr Townley asked if the Engineer could not get the work more to the westward, and he replied in the negative. H e (Mr Matthewson) and Mr Dickson wanted it more to the eastward. After a good deal of desultory discussion he (Mr Matthewson) settled the question by moving that the plan be submitted to Mr Blackett. He felt that it would be a slight upon the Engineer to throw it out, and he did net think it possible for Mr Blackett to pass it. Mr Graham ruled that they oould not make such a motion, and gave ae a reason that the Board hud nothing what-

ever to do with the selection of the site—it was the Government Engineer He raid he would move a motion that would meet with Mr Graham’s views, and he moved that the plans as prepared by Mr Thomson be sent to Wellington for Mr Blackett’s approval, believing that Mr Blackett himself must have objected to them on looking at the schedule and preamble of the Act. They hung fire for a lone time. The Engineer then went down to Wellington, the latter also sending an alternative plan, and to his (Mr Matthewson’s) horror and astonishment the first plan came back approved of by the Government Engineer. He said there was no unanimity. They were not allowed to express an opinion on the question. How Mr Blackett overlooked it he did not know. If he had done his duty be would have sent the plan back. As a Government nominee, he (the speaker) went bv the Act of Parliament, and as long as there was anything illegal he would go against it. He believed if there was any sea at all a schooner could not lie at the works, as now proposed to be carried out, unless there was a pier there. Those shipping stock did not care to ship by small vesaels, and they all tried to get large boats which no matter what the weather was like, could keep their time. Owners sometimes drove their stock in and took them away when they found they could not get them in the big boats. In concluding, he hoped the whole matter would be considered at some future meeting , . , Mr Dickson would not say much as he had not seen the report. With regard to the site question, at the time the motion was made it was a bye-word that the works would be opposite the different streets up to tirey street. When Mr Matthewson proposed the motion referred to he had pulled him by the coat tail, and whispered in his ear, “ Why do you make such a proposition ?’ He said, “Look at the preamble of the Bill. Mr Matthewson went on a little further, and then he (the speaker) whispered again, ‘‘Forsooth, why make the motion.” Mr Matthewson said, “ We have the Government Engineer to approve of the plans. He cannot approve of them, nor will anv sane man.” Now when they had spent half of their money they did not get the accommodation they had prior to a shilling being spent. [Mr Matthewson : Worse.' If the Board had done right, when the Government placed the embargo u it by restricting the expenditure, they would have handed the works over to the Government. He would suggest now as the wisest course to let the Government have the blocks, machinery and everything. They said it was in the wrong place— Mr Chambers : They do not say it u in the wrong position. Mr Dickson : Mr Higginson says it is in the wrong position. Mr Chambers said Mr Higginson, did not say so —it was the moat suitable position for the money. Mr Dickson said Mr Higginson had a way of giving two impressions, and tried to be as easy as possible to either side. If, as had been stated, the large boats of the Union Company would not call here, how were they going to get ocean steamers to come in ? That was what they had borrowed the money for, and mortgaged their properties. Was the money now being misspent or not ? Give the Government everything, and let them put the breakwater at the place for which they had raised the money. His view had always been that they should have the harbor at sea. One misunderstanding had led them and the public astray—the majority of the members returned to the Board by the Government and the ratepayers bad .prior to their being returned been diametrically onposed to the construction of the harbor, and, apparently they had carried our their views consistently. They did not care a fig where it was, but placed it in the hands of Mr Thomson, who, he believed, had been led by a majority of the Board to do what he would not do were he acting upto his own views. Let the Government make it a colonial work, and so have the benefit. The Chairman said it was clear that immediate action was necessary. He said the report was a voluminous one. and had only been received on Monday, but he believed anyone enquiring for it could have seen it. Substantially, he approved of Mr Townley’s motion, though it might have been worded differently The question, he believed, had gone beyond the stage as to the suitability of the site or works, but he felt clear that the work, upon the whole, was a proper work, considering the amount at their disposal. He considered that established beyond all doubt. The anticipations of some people had been entirely falsified by the fact that the bar, instead of blocking up and injuring the river, was clearing away, according to the diver’s statements. Upon the evidence, they were bound to assume that the work was going to be a satisfactory one. He believed the report was wrong, upon the evidence, in the assertion that the expenditure of the £40,000 would involve an increased charge upon the district. He had endeavored to show the Committee that a considerable saving would be made in lighterage, and that the merchants would be only too willing to pay extra wharfage in return for the increased facilities and saving of 5s or 6s a ton on lighterage. The Committee did not seem to have taken this into account, or tonnage rates or port dues, nor did they consider the Tauwhareparae Block, which the evidence showed would be a valuable endowment if there were roads to it. He did not think, fairly considering the interests of the district, that this report ought to have been made, and he thought Parliament would be wrong in acting upon such recommendation. He confessed he did not share the feelings of Messrs Townley and Chambers with regard to vesting the money in independent trustees. In reference to what’Sir G. Whitmore had said, that he was willing that gentleman’s district should escape the responsibility, the fact was that he had met Sir George Whitmore,.in one of the lobbies, and they had some jocular conversation. Sir George, they knew, was a x great talker, and it was not an easy matter to put a word in, but during the course of. the Conversation he had humorously asked him if he were relieved of the rates would he be satisfied. There was no official communication whatever, and he was astonished that Sir George should take the liberty of thus quoting a private conversation as if it were official. When he was telling it it was a pity he did not give the whole conversation. Among other things, he (the Chairman) had told him that he had heard they were going to build a breakwater at Tuparoa, and if he would support theirs they would support his. He said be was going to do that for himself. He (the Chairman) said to him, “ Why cannot you drop all this grumbling about the harbor district, and let us put our heads together and try and do the district some good.” Referring to the radius question he (the Chairman) said he believed it was entirely unconstitutional, and that it would be regarded a breach of faith with the bondholders I for the rating district to be altered. The money was borrowed on the rates of the County of Cook, but Parliament was all powerful, and he supposed they would have to take what Parliament chose to give them. He believed it was an invasion of the district’s rights to carry out provisions of the proposed Act. He did not think Parliament should at first authorise them to spend the amount, and then say they could not do it. The real mistake was that when the limit was made it was allowed to go unchallenged. That became law before the Board were aware of it, and that was the beginning of all this trouble. He did not intend to go into the subject as to the usefulness of the work, he thought it was long past that stage, but considered it was as useful a work as they could have, and believed when they had finished it they would gat all the Union boats alongside. ° Mr Dickson asked the Secretary what depth O’ water the Snark and Noko had last Friday week. . , The Secretary! I don t know, Mr Dickson asked if he knew that they were stuck on the bar, and that the passengers had to be landed. The Secretary I believe so. Mr Chambers: The river still has a bottom. Mr Dickson: With only ten inches on the bottom you can hardly trade in frozen mutton, Mr Townley said he had no wish to reply. He supposed the motion would be carried unanimously. He did not touch on the site—s mply replied to the report. Messrs Matthewson and Dickson both found fault with the work at the present time. Suppose Goode’s work bad been carried out they would not have got to the end of the ironwork until they had spent £194,000 and having no protection it would cost another £SOOO for wings on to it« Mr Matthewson said he had made no referent to Goode's plan; it was to the pre-

amble of the Act, bat he believed the whole thing coaid be done for less than stated. Mr Townley : At any rate there is no question of site. I think we should be unanimous in dealing with a question so important at the present time. The motion was then put and carried, Messrs Dickson and Matthewson voting against it. It was decided to telegraph jthe resolution to the Government, Messrs Dickson and Matthewson again dissenting. Mr Matthewson said he hoped that the names of the dissentients would also be telegraphed. Mr Townley said they had a statement before them which showed that, with the restriction placed upon them, they could only continue for another fortnight at the outside, unless something were done. They did not want to exceed the limit, and render themselves liable to the penalty. There was only one course open to them, and he felt reluctantly compelled to move—“ln accordance with the amended Act of 1887, which limits the expenditure of the Gisborne Harbor Board to £65,000 in the construction of their breakwater, and which limit will be reached about the end of the present week, that notice be given to all the employees on such works the Board is reluctantly compelled to stop such works, and to dispense wfth their services.” The Chairman was sorry to have to second the motion. The limit of expenditure was placed upon them by the Legislature, and he did not think they had any option. Mr Chambers said they must take the course proposed. He looked upon it as the result of the action of a narrow-minded clique who had been most active in slandering and injuring the district until at last Parliament had taken it up. Captain Tucker regretted the position, but saw nothing else for it. He believed that if a stand had been made when he urged the Board to do so on the limit being fixed, they would not have been in their present position. Parliament no doubt was sick and tired. of the subject, and was not inclined to go into it unless it were forced upon them. Nobody could regret more than he did the necessity for the motion. But it appeared inevitable that they must carry it—his only objection was that action had not been previously taken, so that the exact position might, have been before Parliament at the beginning of the session. Mr Clark also expressed regret that he had to support the motion. He would like, to see the Government force them to stop—if they went on and the Government forced them to stop, it left a good excuse for not paying the rate, though if they did not take the course proposed they rendered themselves liable to a penalty. He considered the restriction a most unwarrantable interference between the ratepayers and the bondholders. Mr Matthewson expressed regret that the hands should have to be discharged, but said ft would have been better to have done it four months aco than go on misspending the money. Work then was more plentiful. Mr Chambers said that was not so. Mr Townley thought by the motion tbev would be carrying out their instructions. If they went on the Government would not stop them, but when the Auditor-General came to see the limit had been exceeded he would bring them into Court. He believed that by the stoppage the ratepayers would be losers of both money and time, and would always regret it. The motion was carried unanimously.