THE HARBOR CRISIS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 199, 22 September 1888, Page 2

THE HARBOR CRISIS.

The entangled maze with which the harbor question appears to have become surrounded has completely split up the old parties, and has given rise to a great variety of opinions as to the course which should be pursued. The other day we advised that a decision of the ratepayers should be taken, but since then a totally new issue has arisen—that is, whether the whole Act may not be invalid. We may say at once that we believe Mr Sievwright’s contention that Parliament has unbounded rights is a perfectly correct one, in so far that it may at any time prevent the money being spent, even though it had allowed it to be borrowed. On a recourse to logic it must be concluded that the matter is, or would be, a colonial, and not merely a local one, and though we may deeply resent the method of the interference, we must submit to it, if the State counsellors direct that the money shall or shall not be spent. At the same time we doubt very much whether Parliament is justified in altering the radius, but they leave that to the ratepayers in the special district to decide themselves. We also think the Board acted hastily in allowing the last few words in the reply to be sent to the Public Trustee, to the effect that they demurred to handing over the security of the ratepayers of the district. The facts might have been simply stated and the Trustee left to settle the matter with the Bank.

However, after considering all these points we do not think the Board have acted unwisely in proceeding with the most extreme caution just at the present moment, and though we have an inherent objection to resorting to law in any way we must not blind ourselves to the fact that there are times when a present expense of a few pounds may save hundreds in the future. The Chairman of the Board, himself a lawyer, expresses the strongest objection to asking for any more legal opinions; but his arguments lose all their force when we remember that it was he who first proposed getting Mr DeLautour’s opinion,, and then he was the only member of the Board to say he disagreed with it. That undoubtedly was the best point in favor of his own argumentsi when the Chairman of the Board refuses to endorse the legal opinion which he proposed should be obtained, there is not much prospect of unanimity of opinion on any advice obtained. Notwithstanding this, however, we think the Board are perfectly right in making certain of the ground on which they are treading. No one can say they did not act wisely in referring the matter to their solicitor in the first place—the fault was in not having the issues more directly stated. In their anxiety for the continuation of the work, some people (Messrs Sievwright a»d Graham among the number) seem too obtuse to perceive that while things are at “ sixes and sevens,” as the saying goes, there is not the remotest chance of the ratepayers deciding in favor of the £40,000. A great many would simply not vote at all, which would amount to the same thing as if they had recorded their vote against the proposal. When we compare the opinions of Messrs Graham and Seivwright and their inspired organ it is entertaining to note how each one makes a leading point of the fact that they are certain the £40,000 proposal will be carried. Mr Graham is so anxious now that the work should proceed by hook or crook that he makes the positive assertion that if the works are not proceeded with now Parliament will put its foot down on them altogether next session, and not even give the ratepayers a voice in the matter. Judging by past events we should say Mr Graham could give a fairly accurate opinion on such a point—but never mind. He seems to lose sight of the fact that whatever the ratepayers decide upon now they may never have an opportunity of reconsidering their decision, no matter what its effect may be. If the ratepayers decide for the loan, and any irregularity should afterwards be discovered, the favorable vote of the ratepayers will be tantamount to saying they agreed to those irregu. larities—a rever.-e vote may be taken to mean a decision very different to that which the ratepayers intended. So that, taking it all through, delay, though at first sight seemingly purposeless, is not altogether without its advantages. It is possible that something unexpected may turn up, and that is not unreasonable to hope when so many unexpected things have turned up in the past, unfortunately never in our favor. Mr Graham may be assured that the Board are not likely to treat the matter in such an off-hand way as he does—if he thinks it is a reasonable thing to allow his own Bill to become an Act without even being able to understand it himself, he should not assume the members of the Board will do so, and they do not pretend to be infallible. If it does come to the point that Mr Graham prophesies, the matter might not be in a much worse position than it is now, because if Parliament took the responsibility on itself there it might be as the silver lining is to the dark clouds. Still we hope the trouble will not go so far as that.