NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13096, 8 February 1906, Page 4

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

TIMARU AND LYTTELTON. The raj)id progress which Timaru is making as a shipping port, thanks to the unexpected success which hits .attended the efforts of her energetic citizens to make a harbour where apparently nature had not intended a harbour to be, is beginning t> alarm the guardians of the interests of the port of Lytteltnn. This success was never anticipated by them, and they now see in the rise of Timaru, a- formidable rival to their own port. How closely they are watching this new competitor, may be judged from an article in the Christchurcli Press, in which the writer mentions with something like amazement that Timaru is not only growing in prosperity, but is having the audacity to attempt to capture the trade of Ashburton, which Lyttelton hitherto has claimed as her own. This heinous offence is. it would [appear, aggravated by the fact that efforts 'are being made "'with some apparent suc- , cess" to cement popular friendship between Timaru and Ashburton by means of j "one of the biggest excursions ever organised in Canterbury," and "mutual courtesies ! between the Mayors of the two town.®." | But more remains to be told. Not- content- with social tactics of this despicable , description, Timaru has actually " success- ! fully and enthusiastically" resuscitated its defunct Chamber of Commerce, and given it the high-sounding title of the South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, thus artfully bringing Ashburton within its sphere. "Another movement in Timaru," we learn, "takes the shape of «i proposal to erect a largo hotel," witn the object, seemingly, of providing accommodation for visitors from Ashburton. Altogether the conduct of Timaru appears to our Christchurch contemporary to be very inconsiderate and unfriendly. The Press, in seeking to counteract the designs of the new rival to Lvttleton, falls foul of the tunnel rate," which we learn is an " unjust impost levied on all goods passing through from Lytteiton to Christchurcli," and which has no possible excuse except ; that it brings revenue to the Railway De- ! part meat, and " helps to pay the loss on ! working some of the political' lines in other parts of the colony." All these lines happen to be in the South Island, and curiously enough the biggest of them all, the Midland railway, has for its object the connecting of Christchurch. and the West | Ocast. Under these circumstances, we are afraid we cannot sympathise with the wails from Christchurch over the enterprise and advancement of Timaru.

RAFTING ON RIVERS. A question which opens a wide field of i discussion was recently before Dr. McArthur, the stipendiary magistrate at Wellington. A sawniilling company, engaged in carrying on operations on the banks of the Wanganui River, was proceeded against by the Commissioner of Crown Lands for having, without holding a- license, caused a large quantity of timber to be rafted down the river. The main objection to this proceeding was that such rafting was attended with danger, both to the steamer traffic and the protective works, which have been erected at great cost. On the strict ques- | tion of law, into the details of which it is not necessary here to enter, the magistrate j convicted the company, and imposed a fine of £1, a similar line being inflicted in a number of other cases of a like nature. The importance of this decision lies in the fact that it practically closes one of the great waterways of the colony to the rafting of timber, which is probably the cheapest of all forms of transit. It was stated in the course of the case that by rafting timber could bo delivered in Wanganui 6s or 7s cheaper per 100 ft. than by rail. It follows, therefore, that if sawmillers on the Wanganui River are not permitted to send down timber rafts, the public must pay more for their timber. We are of opinion that this is a matter which is deserving of the serious attention of the Government. If it can be shown that such rafting is dangerous to navigation on the river, or to the protective works, it might be "necessary to impose special restrictions upon it, but to peremptorily prohibit it altogether seems to us to be opposed alike to public policy and the .public interest.