Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1909. DREDGING AT THE GOVERNMENT WHARF.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIII, Issue XLIII, 10 September 1909, Page 2

Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1909. DREDGING AT THE GOVERNMENT WHARF.

THE RAILWAY DEPARTMENT DEADLOCK. IT was thought at the time the Rakaia and the Aotea came to Nelson through the improve/,' entrance to the harbour and incidentally ad,**,*' materially to the local revenue of the _tailAV__* P-jvrrt-ment by using the Government" Whan" •and railway trucks, that- the question of dredging the berthage 'had been settled ojjcd and for all between the Departmeui Hi.r] the Harbour Board. It is beyond clouts that the Ministers of Railways themsblv.es, si^re Mr Seddon's Premiership to the last change when Mr MiJJiir took .office, have admitted the obviously just arid logical contention that while the wharf remained' the propertv and under lhe sole .control of the Railway Department and acquited all wharfage and haulage revenue from incoming vessels, it was obviously the duty of the Department to bear the cost of improving and maintaining in Its improved condition the berthage for those vef.se!.. Matters, in fact, reached the stage that there sficmed to be no room for controversy, prolonged negotiations and correspondence appeared to have reached finality, and apparently it was understood that the necessary dredging was to be dope at the cost of the Department, the Harbour Board giving all facilities and lending whatever aid it could at cost price. • • • « . • . But by one of those perverse departmental hitches lhat have occurred more than once uhjle a settlement has been pending the iJeu__*.ment has reverted to its former contention ihiu the Board should pay for dredging its own **ndpwm_ents or* baud over the latter lo the -DepSi-,.---ment. Thai is to say, a few feet from the wharf, which ls the properly of the Department, the Board's endowment heffins, in 'other words, the harbour itself', and the Department fhidii itself confronted with the difficulty that it must improve property not its own in order that its own revenues may be increased. A privately-owned railway company j would have no difficulty in deciding l wha.r- lo do in these circumstances. It : would comt io an arraneement with adjoining owners, mutually satisfactory, or it would sell out to .Jwsfc owners. But the state railway department, however much it may desire to work on business lines, is confronted with tlie difficulty that condition? are not the fame in every place where it has a wharf monopoly, and that expenditure at one wharf, however justified, may give the residents .who are interested in some other whan" a political "pull" and precedent for demanding eq.ua! expenditure there also, without especial xt-gigd tp justification or business; reasons. The anomaly of the position in Nelson has arisen elsewhere — wherever, in fact, j there is dual harbour control, and always nie Bailway Department has to tace the uhflr_;e that it does not appear to comtjreiierid iiie lousiness aspect of expenditure. Tne reason is-io be found, not in local -conditions, but in the circumstance that the Department dares not spend money even for purposes .« increasing its ow*n facilities and revenue, lest thereby a handle might be given to politicians to extort expenditure elsewhere, often without similar justification. In the case of Nelson, departmental exigencies in the direction indicated have over-ridden oral and written pledges bv Ministers, and althouah the negotiations have covered a period of years, it seems as if the situation is as undecided as it> was at the begin-nine. Meantime, the port is likely to suffer, and the expenditure on its improvement to be rendered almost nugatory, merely because the Railway Department dares not, and the Harbour Board cannot, undertake once and for nil the efficient dredeine: of the berthage of the former's .wharf. • ••_._. •

Protest, and appeal have been made ! lor many months, but in vain. On each ocacsion that the question ob berthage dredging has seemed as near settlement as Ministerial promises and pledges could accomplish, the departni-Atal permanent heads have reverted to the ohi aud obviously untenable contention that the lioaril mußt drcoga Us own endowments at its own cost. There appears to be no outlet from the cnUde-sac of officialism. If it were possible for clear local evidence to carry weight without regard to considerations quite unconnected with local conditions, there would be no difficutly in getting officials who must be convinced already to accept the logical business deduction that it is the duty of the Department 0.0 . bear the cost of a work that will increase its own revenue solely and only indirectly benefit the revenue of the Harbour Board. But, as already pointed out, it happens that -Pieton, Foxton, and hosts of other places hav* a say in the matter: for, with departmental expondituve in Nelson, however justified, politicians''intorei*ted in the localities named may use Nelson as a lover for forcing . open ■ the departmental money chest and thus securing a share of "loaves ami fishes," without regard to business considerations or iogic. v__ a :••■ «•«'-•» 'B ' " ;; . . : .. ..._.,: .

There is only one avenuo of escape ■■ iio.n tne anomalous and absurd position in which the Railway Department finds itself, hampered as it is by its political environments. It should hand over the Railway Wharf to the Harbour Board, and by that means justify its contention . and policy that departmental expendi- ■ ture can be incurred only on railway property. The Railway Wharf uw"*-'---poly in this city has been un justifiable and fruitful of innumerable complications ever since the Harbour Board and j consequently dual control were created, and Nelson will never Teap tho full harvest of her harbour improvements till the dual control is abolished. However willing Ministers mav be to treat Nelson from the standpoint of local revenue increase achieved by local railway improvements as affecting the berthage at the wharf, departmental heads will continue to view the issue from tho standpoint of the claims of other pl.oces, and thus the deadlock will continue. • »••*** So far as the present and past policy of the Department is concerned, there does not seem to be much hope of the wharf being handed over to the Board. When tho latter was constituted the Government took care to deprive it of al endowments which might be converted into wharf accommodation, giving the Board £500 a year in lieu, solely in order that the wharf monopoly should be retained in its hands. In these env eumstances it is not to be supposed that control will be relinquished merely tor the asking. But, even if the citizens be unable to secure it, immediately or in the near future, public opinion, expressed unmistakeably, may have some effect in removing departmental opposition to the fulfilment of repeated Ministerial promises, and ensure some sort of finality in .he matter af maintaining adequate depth for large vessels at and near the Government Wharf. It is idle to argue further pointing out the obvious and logical conclusion that the Railway Department, as a business concern, should look after and pay for that which inpreases its own revenue— or that it is unjust to expect the Harbour Board to pay for work that will bring it nothing directly in light or port dues. All that is l?ft to do is to place before ifte Departmerifc thp alternative of maintain, ing its wharf adequately to the growing needs and expansion of the port, ot giving up control to thoses who will provide such adequate maintenance for the usual consideration of Interest earned on ou " a y*