Hawke's Bay Herald. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 18884. MR KINROSS AND THE HARBOR BILL.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6976, 2 October 1884, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 18884. MR KINROSS AND THE HARBOR BILL.

Mr Kinross seems very proud of his action relative to the Harbor Board's Bill, judging from his letters published in yesterday's issue. Probably any other man in Napier would be ashamed to avow that he took such a part. First, he misused tho trust reposed in him by the Chamber of Commerce, if a summary of his evidence forwarded by telegraph is correct. We are told that Mr Kinross laid considerable stress on the fact that he was in Wellington as the representative of the Chamber of Commerce. The inference to be drawn from that is that he wished the Local Bills . Committee to believe that in his opposition to the bill he was backed up by the Chamber. There could be no greater misrepresentation of actual fact than that. Mr Kinross was merely appointed as a delegate to the conference of Chambers of Commerce, to deal with certain specified questions, of whioh the harbor was not one. Moreover, perhaps in anticipation of the course which Mr Kinross adopted, the Chamber passed a resolution strongly in favor of the^.Harbor Bill. At that meeting Mr Kinross was present, and did his utmost to burke the resolution. The Chamber of Commerce has been blamed for sending Mr Kinross to Wellington. We venture to say that had it not been for a peculiar combination of- circumstances he would not have been chosen. In the first place he was then chairman of the Chamber, and in the second place he volunteered as a delegate. His offer could not be refused without deliberately insulting him, and it was for that reason, and that reason only, he was appointed. It is an open secret that he was not re-elected as chairman beoause it was feared that he would misuse that position in order to lend weight to his personal opposition to the Harbor Board's bill, and to leave him no room to pose as the. representative of the Chamber in the matter the motion was passed approving the bill. In spite of these facts Mr Kinross poses before the Local Bills Committee as. representative of the Chamber, and seems proud of it! Now for the second misrepresentation. He tries to make it appear that the barning of his effigy was an act of politioal spite. Perhaps he only speaks in ignorance. If so, we will inform him that the leaders in the cremation episode were members of his own party, but that the funda were provided by a subscription, in which members o£ both parties heartily joined. We expressed our disapproval of the effigy burning at the time, and we have not altered our opinion, but we cannot allow. the. misrepresentation contained in Mr Kinross's letter to go unchallenged. In the third place Mr Kinross tells us that he has been the means of obtaining cumulative voting instead, of single voting on the question of borrowing for the construction of harbor works. That may be so, though there is : no proof of it. Well, we have no objection to the change, provided that a : simple majority of votes shall settle the question. But Mr Kinross does not tell us that he tried to get one vote given for every thousand pounds' worth of property, and that this ; proposition was scouted as it deserved to be. Just let us see what Mr Kinross's "humble efforts on behalf of the ratepayers " would have meant, if he had his way. A runholder nominally owning land worth. £50,000, but which is mortgaged for £45,000, would have fifty votes for his 1 £500Q worth of property. But it would take fifty small holders, even though their land were wholly unencumbered, to give a like number of votes. We are glad that Mr Kinross's " humble efforts " did not succeed; though had we to describe his action we should slightly alter Mr Kinross's phrase and use the term " audacious efforts." Fourthly, Mr Kinross says " The Local Bills Committee's report also states it will be necessary to make the extension recommended by Messrs. Scott and Bell, so that the issue to be submitted to ratepayers will not be. Mr Groodall's estimate of £196,000, but Messrs Scott and Bell's estimate of £486,000." This is another deliberate misrepresentation. The report is aa follows (we give it verbatim):— "The evidence goes to show that the extension of . Mr Goodall's original plan as advised by Messrs Scott and Bell would be necessary in order to proteot vessels from tha i N.fe. wind. In order to afford complete shelter from the B.W. it will be necessary to construct another wall to the westward, but it does not appear that this part of 'the work is of such vital importance '■ that it cannot be dispensed with for the 'present." Now the £300,000 proposed to Jbe borrowed provides for the extension of the\ breakwater as recommended by ■Messrs Scott and Bell. It was for this ; that the proposed borrowing powers were extended from £200,000 to £300,000. The *ibill is therefore perfectly honest, and j«ayis what it means— and that is not what A'Mr Kinross . says . if >' means. MrKiAross continues :— " The report also affirms the necessity of, providing ~^g^nßi[ltW]^Baion t \oi^ ! the [ beach to :the ( westward,..; so' ,, that from' the Bluff ! to the mouth of the harbor a concrete wall will require tb'be made with a' ijurtam of he^vy" "rubble, and/ to prevent the Western ?Spit being .washed', away and the lagoon 'becoming part of the sea, shingle will reqnire^tq^e. .cartedjor • otherwise tl reimoyed."" Wewi^simply set against this the! words 'of -"-the 'committee's report, are as follows :—" The erosion of „the!shore west of the work by the action ;of-the-'sea- also., enigajged the -of "your c®nimittfe, ;^ni|3tthey think that such erosjion would undoubtedly .take place.. They have it-in'evidierice tfiat the cost of pSoleotiEgtiie 1 land would not be excessive

an d incommensurate with the magnitude, of the: work." It need only be added that Mr (Joodall's scheme provides for the protection of the beach between the breakwater to the eastern mole, although by the ingenious wording of his letter.; Mr Kinross would mislead people into believing that no such provision is made. But why does not Mr Kinross go further, ' and quote the whole report of the committee P The only answer to that is .that the publication would not suit -his purpose. But it will suit the purpose of those who are anxious to see Hawke's Bay take its proper place as the richest district in the North Island, so we will quote it once more. This is the report, omitting the parts quoted above : — Your committee have carefully considered the petition referred to them by the Council, and have taken the evidence of Mr Kinross (one of the promoters of the petition), and Mr Blackett (Chief Engineer of the colony), of Captain Bendall (surveyor to the Marine Underwriters' Association), and of Mr Ormond. Looking at the. general question, and the best means for providing a harbor at Napier suitable for vessels drawing more than 15ft of water, your committee are of opinion' that the plan adopted by ; the Harbor Board is on the whole the most suitable. It will provide ample^ depth of water. The important question of the action of the shingle was fully discussed. The evidence goes to show that the action of the shingle in this case will be similar to that which is going on at Timaru, and there appears to be good reason to believe that the shingle would not inter/we with the usefulness of the proposed breakwater for a very considerable number of years, and that if it does at any time prove troublesome, means can be adopted for preventing it from doing any damage. There seeiAs to be little doubt that a large area of land would be reclaimed by the shingle to the south of the proposed breakwater, which would probably prove a very valuable addition to the Board's property. With regard to the question of revenue it appears that the resources of the Hawke's Bay district fully warrant the expectation of a largely increased export and import trade, with a consequent increase of dues to be received if the proposed facilities for shippiag are obtained. Further consideration has been given to the subject by your committee, and the evidence taken on the various subjects referred to in the petition tends to confirm them in the opinion as to the desirability of the bill being allowed to proceed as amended. . An independent set of gentlemen, .sitting in committee, take the evidence of experts and others, and then report that Mr G-oodall's plan will provide ample depth of water; that the so-called shingle difficulty is no difficulty at all, but only a bugbear ; and that the trade of Hawke's Bay warrants the proposed borrowing. And Mr Kinross relies on this report to support him in his antagonism to the harbor scheme ! Verily his props are weak, if this is his strongest one !