HARBOUR WORKS.

Northern Advocate, 19 July 1919, Page 2

HARBOUR WORKS.

(To the Editor)

yj r> —When criticising the Borough Council ior not supporting the scheme ox worKs as proposed oy the iiarbour Board, you stiess the point mat such an important body as the Chamber of Commerce Council heartily approves the proposals. Would you Kindly publish details of the voting when the subject was discussed, itumour says that the three bank managers and a Kamo resident voted aye, ana lour business men of Whangarei voted no. Then Mr Thomson, of of New Zealand, gave his casting vote with the ayes. Ke the modified proposals you aiiude co, the very first condition the board mentions is, in my opinion, certain to fail, viz., the passing of the by-laws, x'he extraordinary bylaws have already been returned by the Minister of Marine as not being in order. Is it surprising such is the case, when £20,000 value of coal would pay a rate of £1000; and £20,000 value of timber exported would only pay about £80, or 1.12 th the amount levied on the coal. The by-laws are bristling with contrasts of too much or too little. Councillor Holmes, whom you mention as the one advocate, has always been strongly opposed to a heavy by-law tax on local industries, and he strongly opposed a tax of 6d per ton on coal and cement some years ago. The comment of a well-known farmer, when speaking of th e matter a few days ago was: "It was real smart business to 3olve the problem of costs by saddling most of it on coal and I cement, but he doubted the wisdom or justic e of it." When the Harbour Board bring forward financial pro[posals, which are based on wisdom, and justice, and which insure an adequate return for the outlay, then, I add, I believ e every member of the borough Council will support them. The progress may then be so great that even the "Advocate" may be satisfied. —I am, etc.,

A. CARTER,

(Mr Carter is again amongst his

, smoke clouds. Support of the Board's action was not given on the casting vot e of the chairman. Rum-

our is a misleading jade, and our correspondent would be wise to keep away from her. The division Mr Carter refers to was not as to whether or no the council should

support the board, but whether that

support should be given by the council or the whol e chamber. Mr Jack, representing one sidej considered the support would carry more weight if it cam e from the whole chamber; Mr Thomson thought the council was quite competent to express an opinion, and gave his casting vote in favour of Mr Deighton's motion accordingly. There was no motion upon which support of th e Bill defended upon the chairman's vote. —Ed. N.A.)