The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Tuesday, October 9, 1888. THE HARBOR STATEMENT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 206, 9 October 1888, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Tuesday, October 9, 1888. THE HARBOR STATEMENT.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's, Thy God’s, and truth’s.

The statement which is published in the Standasd this morning, as to the advisability or otherwise of continuing the harbor works, appears to us a very unsatisfactory production, taking it in the light in which it is intended. Although professedly for the information of ratepayers, it is one of those things which “no fellah can understand.” In a complicated question of this nature it is not an easy thing to explain matters, and no doubt much trouble has been expended in compiling the statement; but perhaps with a little more labor it might have been made possible for the ordinary mind to comprehend. As it is we believe it ig almost useless for the original purpose —that is, we presume, to convey to the ratepayers an idea of thresults of spending or not spending the jfao,o<x>. Would it not have been better, for instance, to explain to the ratepayers that J 4*a4ths and mean a shade over a halfpenny and a farthing rs?peatively ? The report of the Engineer, which accompanies the statement, is likewise a curious document, If Mr Thomson speaks as a ratepayer, well and good ; but if as a servant of ths Board, what right has he, in what purports to be a report of “ work done in the past and tn estimate of the cost of future work,” to introduce into it matter which in no way concerns him in hi? position as Engineer ? The ratepayers do not want information as to charges made against the Board or its officials: to refer to such matters at the present juncture only tends to convey an impression that they were not groundless. The statement and report do not show jiisl what U wanted*

The position appears to be simply this: Will the expenditure of £40,000 repay itself ? If the money is given to the Public Trustee, it must earn 5 per cent., or /'2OCO per annum. If it is spent on works it must give a return of £2,400, being interest and sinking fund. The Board must show plainly to the ratepayers that it will do this. Z"39°° his to be paid annually for the £65,000 spent, as well as the interest on /'540, lessening by /"54 every year. It may also be expected that the Trustee will get 5 per cent, for the balance of the loan, or, at least, he will | get the 4i per cent, now got, which at the most would only make a deficit of a year, making in all to be paid about 5000 per annum, lessening each year X's 4. The penny and half-penny rate now levied brings in this sum. The extra rate required, according to the Chairman’s figures, will be a halfpenny and farthing on the special district. Ihe Engineer shows that for ten years /■l5OO a year may be expected from revenue. This is only an estimate —it may increase; more likely, the heavy harbor rate will make it decrease. But, assuming it is correct, it shows a loss of /■4BOO and £7200, or £12,000 in ten years, and that then it will begin to repay itself out of revenue, or in other words, the /"ioBo that would otherwise then be available to pay off liability already incurred will be all absorbed by the /40,000. We do not wish to throw cold water on the scheme, but it is apparent that this statement is not so clear as it might be. In the first place it is not safe to rely on any possible surplus of interest from moneys in the hands of a trustee. Next we do not believe merchants would agree to pay the extra wharfage even if it is allowed by law. Thirdly the Board’s endowment has hitherto been an encumbrance and not a source of revenue, 1 nor is it likely to be such a source for some time to’ come. Fourthly, as we have said before, it is not safe to rely on an increased revenue, and against it must be placed an increased ordinary expenditure. We were the first to moot that the extension might cost less than £40,000. The Engineer admits this, and yet we have no figures to show the exact cost and the peculiar advantages - of each stage beyond a general idea that so many feet cost so many pounds. We do trust that some statement will be made, or better still be prepared for the meeting so that the ratepayers can ■ understand the position without racking their brains.