TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16326, 23 August 1913, Page 12

TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

A QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION. THE FOG SIGNAL. [From Our Correspondent.] TIMARU, August 22. The Timaru Harbour Board has been considerably exercised of late over a question of representation. The Mackenzie County Council wishes to have two representatives on the Board, one for the Tekapo and Albury ridings and one for Opuka and Fairlie ridings, and this has opened up the question of the rights of other districts. At to-dav’s meeting of the Board, Mr J. S. Rutherford, the Mackenzie representative, moved: “That the necessary steps should be taken to amend the Harbours Amendment Act, 1910, provision being made for two memberß to represent the Mackenzie County on the Board, one for the Tekapo and Albury ridings and one for the Opuha and Fairlie ridings.” Mr N. Francis moved as an amendment: “That in consideration .of the areas and values of the districts of South Canterbury the present representation should be altered by the addition of two extra members, one for the Mackenzie County and one for the Waimate district, and at the same time it should be arranged, if possible, to give the borough of Waimate separate representation. Mi Francis said that on a basis of value Mackenzie and Waimate both required another member. The Waimate borough and the Waimate County each asked that representation should be made, if possible, separately, perhaps on the lines of the hospital representation, and he would suggest that the county should bo given three seats and the borough one seat, but that was a matter for arrangement between the two bodies. Mr Thew said that neither the. population basis nor the valuation basis met the case. He thought that the most foolish thing ever done in connection with the election of the Board was the parliamentary franchise. It was unjust and unwise. A further amendment was proposed by Messrs Turnbull and Stickings that the matter should be held over until 1914, when Mr O. N. Orbell would bo back from the Old Country.. Mr J. Black (Mayor of Waimate) opposed Mr Francis’s amendment saying that he did not think the Waimate people were anxious for a change. He had been instructed by the Borough Council that If Mackenzie was to be granted another member he should ask for another member for Waimate, but ho thought it a pity to interfere with present representation, and the Board was quite big enough at present. Mr Francis said that he had not read the resolution passed by the Waimate Borough Council, .thinking that Mr Black, who was Mayor, would do so. The Borough Council’s resolution was: “ That if Timaru is going to increase the number of its representatives the Council is of opinion that tho Waimate borough should have separate representation.”

Replying to Mr Black, Mr Francis said that he had been away for a year, and on his return he had taken immediate steps to see that the district was properly represented, which, perhaps, it had not been in the past. As three members were present, ho would not press the matter, and was quite prepared to wait until there was a full meeting. It was then decided that the matter should be held over until Mr C. N. Orboll’s return.

The fog signal has been a frequent subject of discussion at Harbour Board meetings. The signal, which is costly to operate, is maintained solely by the Board, and some of the members have suggested previously that it should be done away with._ Mr D. C. Turnbull revived the suggestion to-day, saying that the signal was of little use. Small vessels could feel their way into port during a fog, and big vessels would wait outside whether there was a fog signal or not. The chairman (Mr F. J. Rolleston) said that he considered that the fog signal was not of sufficient use to justify the responsibility attached to the Board over it. A report showed that during the past month the fog signal had been used eighty-seven hours. Mr Turnbull stated that on one occasion recently a boat had come in, but had not heard the signal, though it was easily to be heard up Wai-iti Road. After discussion, it was decided to hold over judgment until replies were received from the various captains who had been asked for opinions as to whether the present position of the signal was approved.