Gisborne Harbor Poll.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 220, 10 November 1888, Page 3

Gisborne Harbor Poll.

[to the editor.] Sib, —I have attentively perused the letter in this morning’s paper, under the nom deplume of “ Hawk Eye,” who, as I take it, has been soaring aloft and with his keen and penetrating eye has given us a bird’s eye view of our harbor works, Board, and financial position 5 in fact, sir, he appears to have been aloft ever since the loan was floated—the works started and completed, the number of men and steam engines required for conveying the goods from the vessel’s sides into the drays for distribution in the town, has all come under his observation. In the first place, I would ask Mr Hawk Eye where he was when the discussion was taking place as to whether we should go in for harbor works or not, and, if he was a resident in the place, why did he withhold his valuable views, which he has now brought forward—all too late—when they might have saved the place from this expenditure ? With reference to the statements made by Mr Matthewson at the Board’s meetings, I rpgrpt to have to state that the revenue from wharfages has fallen off, and so far Mr Matthewson was correct; but let us for a moment analyse Mr Matthewson’s actions at the Board’s meetings. The question at issue is taking a poll. Now, bad MrMatthewson had his way in the early stages of the work, the breakwater would have been let in one contract, and on the present site too, for he mad? no objection to it. Had such been the case, the ratepayers would not have had the privilege of voting as to whether a further sum of £40,000 should be expended, for the contractor would have had the ratepayers by the throat, and the whole ofthe money would have had to be spent on the works, and the ratepayers would not have had the privilege of stopping at £105,000 and thus saving the district from excessive rating. We should either have had to pay heavy compensation to the contractor or had to spend the £175,000. Then the ratepayers would have had no relief. More recently, many of Mr Matthewson’s statements have been damaging to the district and caused great loss to it ; and had the work been let in one contract, would the transit of goodshave been facilitated by that means? With regard to the wharfage revenue, if there is not sufficient surplus after paying expenses, this amount cannot be paid, there being no power to strike a rate for this payment, therefore, ratepayers, let me ask you not to fear this bogey. With reference to Mr Sievwrighi’s figures, that I shall leave for Mr Sievwright t<» answer himself. With regard to the numoer of days vessels of the Australia’s class can use the pier, I wish we had vessels using the pier 250 days in the year. If such were the case, little or no rates would be required, but as vessels of this class only call here at present about 100 times a year, we may fairly assume they will always be able to come alongside. With regard to the wisdom of taking a poll, my opinion is that we would have shown great weakness in allowing the works to remain idle until next session of Parliament, and I feel sure that with the works in full swing we shall be more likely to get a just measure than if we had allowed the works to remain standing, for fear of taking the poll. I quite agree that the differential rating as at present decided by the Amendment Act is unequal and cannot help but be injurious to the special district, and must be amended. Whether we can go back under the old Act of 1884, which, in my opinion, would be the right course ; or, if not, the present special district must be extended northwards. As to whether the Government can be trusted with a large or small sum, I leave that to your correspondent to decide. No doubt, if the smaller sum will be safe, so will the larger. Ido not think anything can be said about that, nor yet about the contract with the Bank—that can speak for itself. With regard to the £40,000, there is no £40,000 set aside until after the poll is taken and carried. That question can be dealt with when the Board receives the ratepayers’ decision as to whether they are to take the money or let it pass to the Government Trustee. With regard to the rate of expenditure and the Engineer’s salary, it is an undoubted fact that the Government will not allow a marine work of the importance of the breakwater, to be carried on without an engineer of some sort supervising it.

Your correspondent has no doubt that the tide of prosperity will shortly flow. Such being the case, would it not be better to go on with the work and be able to take advantage of the prosperity when the tide sets in, by having our works completed to a useful point ? I feel so convinced that the prosecution and completion of the works to a useful point will be of such material benefit to the district that I shall myself vote for it, and ask all those who wish to see the place advance, do likewise. I cannot agree with Major Porter when he urges inaction until Parliament meets. Inaction never won anything, 'We have a battle to fight, and we must be up and ready for the fiay, and the next favorable answer to our caluminators will be to show by our united vote that we are determined to continue to a successful point the work that we have started. The Ormond-Whitmore bantling which appeared in the year 1888 must be strangled, and if we pull together we shall be able to do so. The child so mild to look upon on its first appearance has turned out when looked into and understood (save the mark ’) a veritable monster, but his life must be a short one. The Harbor Board will no doubt be able for him, with the confidence of the ratepayers to assist them. This fair country will not submit to the imposition which is attempted, to the injury of the whole district. Relief must be demanded and when we go with a united demand we shall get some redress,—l am, &c. J, Townley.