Hawkes Bay Herald MONDAY, JANUARY 19, 1885. TOWN AND COUNTRY.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7066, 19 January 1885, Page 2

Hawkes Bay Herald MONDAY, JANUARY 19, 1885. TOWN AND COUNTRY.

A runholdbr, well known for his outBpoken opposition to every attempt to form a harbor at Napier, exclaimed in town on Saturday, "You townsmen don'c care a rap whether the harbor will be successful or not ; all you care about is the expenditure of a large sum of money in the place, and when it is spent you can clear out, having made your pile." Similar statements are, we are well aware, t , diligently circulated over the country," with the' object of raising a feeling against the town, and making it

appear that the harbor question is really one of the town versus country. All such assertions are aa unjust and untrue as they are absurd. Those townsmen who are working most earnestly for a harbor are among the largest holders oi town property, and if they did not believe in the success of the breakwater they would not advocate it. Their prosperity is inextricably bound up with the prosperity of the town, and the prosperity of the town is dependent on the prosperity of the country. If the harbor will not serve the country it will not serve the town, and holders of property in town will be heavy losers. Are owners of property ap simple as to advocate a wort for the aake of mere temporary, prosperity ? Then it mußt not be forgotten that the town takes upon itself juat double the responsibility the country is asked to take, for if any deficiency in revenue has to be made good town properties will be liable to a rate twice as heavy as that leviod in the country. Would the ratepayers of Napier bo so unanimous if they did not believe in the permanency of the proposed harbor P To say that is to stigmatise them as arrant fools, content to sacrifice ultimate prosperity for a present temporary advantage Thirdly, the construction of the harbor works will not cuuae the circulation of very large Hums of money in tho town, as is represented. If the expenditure is Bpread over six years it would give only £50,000 a year, and of that the greatest part would be sent away for concrete and material, and would not be Bpent in the town. Does anyone believe that the prospect of about £25,000 a year spent for six years would secure a single vote if the voter did not believe in the success of the work ? Fourthly, there is in the conduct of the ratepayers of Napier during the last three years the most complete refutation of any such charge as that brought against them. In that time several plans have been propounded for the improvement of the harbor at the Spit at large expense. Mr Ouloheth's plan, for in* stance, would have cost about as much as Mr Goodall'B, and more would have been spent in labor, for his proposed works would have used less imported material, but would have employed more labor. Did the townsmen clamor for those works to be carried out, simply to get a large sum of money spent in the place? Everyone knows that the idea of spend* ing more money on the Spit harbor was Bcouted on all sides, and we are quite safe in saying that had a poll been taken in Napier not one ratepayer out of ten would have voted for the carrying out of Mr Culcheth's plan. They would not have voted for it because they do not believe that a permanent harbor can ever be made at the Spit ; and if they did not believe in the ultimate success of Mr Goodall's scheme they would not be so unanimous in supporting it. The people of Napier, like the people of the country, look to the future and not to the present only, and only a work which they are convinced will be a success will secure their votes.