HARBOUR BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4740, 27 April 1877, Page 2

HARBOUR BOARD.

■ ■ An adjourned meeting of the Board was helcf . yesterday/afternoon. Present—the Hon. W. H. Reynolds (in the chair), and Messrs Tewsley, Eattray, Ramsay, John Mills, James Mills, Pish, Rutherford, and HackwortH. There were about 30 of our leading merchants present, and it was understood their object was to appear before the Board as deputations iareference to the BEMOVAL OF THE SITE OF THE DOCK 3. Mr Robert Paterson said: I, with some others, appear m opposition to the memorial which was to be presented to you just now. but it appears that the other deputation is nofc ready, consequently, I .have nothing to urge. If the deputation which wishes to have the site of the docks removed,: are ashamed to make an appearance, we willat once withdraw, if the question in to be shelved. We are here to oppose the removal of the: docks from their present site, and if the other deputation wishes to: appear, we will have our say afterwards.'; iJ they do not appear* we will withdraw like-

The CauEiUN; If you have anything to say either for or against the removal of the docks, you had better say" it. _" Mr Fish:l am requested to state that there is a deputation outside, headed by theXo? h_°.h^ something to say. There are abouta? or 30 of them, and if they come in, I don't Be* ■where you are going to, put them,- ■ ■ -Tab; suggestion was acted upon, arid^alt present then, .adjourned to the Council HalL which was quite crowded. uuu^.nsu,. The Mayor: Mr Chairman andientlemeteS I have^been requested; onbehaU ofthe X | majority of commercial men in this City M present you With this memorial, and bS so I may state that I am informed that tfcerl are several gentlemen present to oppose the position which has been taken up by &c mercantile community. My position in the matter is almost a neutral one, and I am aa much interested 111 one side of the question as in the other. -As a member of the bid Harbour Board, perhaps you will permit me to give you what myjiews are in regard to: the wharf W commodation which .should be provided for Dunedm. As pointed out by the memorialiste!. the fact of removing the shipping to such^ great distance; from the \present 'warehouse* ; must militate against their interests The ob=~jectof dredging the harbour is to give everr facility to.trade and commerce, and io extend : them if possible. Anything likely to retard this object must be, detrimental to the City as a whole; as is pointed out by the memorialists,' :That aspect of the matter must,.l think r ba : : endorsed b£ev|ryone present. My own view1, of the matter is that it is questionable docks: should be constructed at all, and I have a strong feeling that it is a mistake to do so., if you take the measurement of tho docks'proposed to be constructed by the Harbour BoardL !youwill find that the.length of their sides isT equivalent to ..the distance between PeUchefc' Bay and Crawford street. And, in addition to* I this, they comprise an area of 30acres; which; i if reclaimed, would be worth from LBO,OOO to ; LIOO,OOO. Now, if you were to construct con- : tmuous docks -you would commence in • tha ; business centre of the City and extend them in accordance, with, the of trade east and west, and -until they would reach from Anderson's Bay road to Black Jack's" Point," The value of -the .30 acres of land-would: be a very material'tasitter'..to the?Board,"Sad-' you should bearin mind that you •will be con. structing one continuous line of ,wharf acedia-* modation along_.the,foreshore. Ships could ; tuen choose position us importers and exporters ; may desire, and t think- that, one continuouswharf would'be the most convenient' Another i reason for cot having docks is that these docks occupy an area of 15 acres each, will have no scour, and will become the receptacleof all the filthy rubbish which may flow into tha- , Harbour. Then, should the Board decide to • have one long line of docks, the result would ba I that in the course of afew years—probably 20 ior 30—you.would have a magnificent'iprftmenade, which; from a sanitary point of viewiwould be of incalculable benefit to the city,-and besides, you would have the satisfaction 7 of :adding to the usefulness and beauty of tho icity for all time.- These are my views upon the and.l: now leave the matter: to .the, :Board, and probably some other gentleman. i will take up. tne matter and say something uppa-

• The petition: read -by His Worship was :signed by 100 persons/and was as follows:—

;T0 THE CHAIRMAN. AKD HEHBERS OP THB OIAGO 'HAST i • ■■■■" ■••■. s'-y, ■*■ bodrboasd., :.• -.-. ...- ; . l: / 4 ■ : The memorial of the undersigned merchants Im*" iothere respectfully, showeth; : . ~ , :. ~~ '■ : 1. That in the opinipn.of :the memorialists the sitW 'selected for the proposed Docks, as shown on the present plan adopted by the Harbour Board, are dniteT i unsuitable, beinjj far removed from the'centre orthe' commerce of'the city,'all' the merchants' offices, ' bonded arid other stores, .custom house, post and. tele■graph offices, &c.,\ , , ..,;;, . ............ I ; 2. That as the Government propose placinjj the'new^ ; Goods Station adjacent to the Docks, the incon- • venieuce and loss which will fellow the transfer of all thegooda traffic of the city from the poiition it now ' occupies will be very great, and inflict ». most serious land unnecessary injury to.the interests of nearly syeiyone engaged in thetrade of the port. .: :: •::%;■■* 1 ,3. That the natural and most convenient* stte for a' : dock is opposite Messrs'ScoulaVs store, to the right of' : Jetty street, and this, with'the pressht basin betwsen Jetty and Kattray streets, your memorialists believe would meet,all^he oMmpbrtj and exports for roany years to come. . ,'^ ;-- 4. That the proper site for the gnods railway statioii" is on the square block' of reclaimed land: opposite' lie Universal Bond,-being the natural centre of the city, and.inbvery' way adapted' for the purpose. Yoar--"^ memorialists are further informed that the Govern-* ment has reserved the right to use the land iv qusstioa for railway purposes. ■' ■..,■' /:;..-.■: ■'■.;,■:■,;■.,■£ 5. Your memorialists therefore trust the Board will--Fee its wayitb give effect t3 their views which they are satisfied represent the feeling of almos; the entiWf commercial communi'y of Duaedia. ;' '■'~ '■!%

Dunedin, 20th April, 18T7.

Mr John Cargill hope I that the Boairci would give the matter: its most earnest coii dderation,;aa iti was quite apparent-that if ; theK docks we're carrjed; out as shown on that plaii^ the result would be; a great, inbonvenience. to the mercantile community and to the public ; There would bedbng carriage and a great wasta ■of traffic if; the docks wouldbe put in thepbsi- ' tion indicated by the -plans. It was said that : this matter had been settled a year ago by tfca- ! old Board, bxA he had learned, that Mr^B. B. ! Cargill had- never been,a ; consehting'party"to ■ placing the docks so .low; down,: asd he and 'others withdrew their opposition.to the pro--1 posal onlyon the understanding that the docks should not be placed in the position indicated ;by the plans. ■ ■ He hoped that fact would hare some weight with the Board in considering the ,matter. Supposing that.it had been settled by • the old Board, and that it could now be shown 'that the interests; of the.public~woiild be sacri-:-ficei. by adhering to these plans,. he.'did nofe; that they; should stink to what was iwrong. He thought .that it could easily be proved that unless the position of the docks was altered great expense would result: He ; was quite sure that': the mercantile com'mtinitywere desirous that the trade of the Port shonm remain where it was at .present; It waa;\vell :knowfl months ago where it was p'ropoaed! to ' ;place the docks, arid the opposing.deputation* had now taken action rather late. He did nbfe attribute any blame to the present Board, and .considered-it free from blame. ■;*- : -.:.-, ■■;■•.- ?;■

:.' The Mayor': As a member of ; the old Board, I may state; distinctly that my. view of; .the matter was that the site of the decks was not permanently fixed. -When the plan was brought before the Board, ; Mr E. B. Cargill : tookup. a strong, position, and considered, that: it was interfering with the southern portion of' the city to fix the docks where they were proposed to be placed. The general planvwas ap-; proved,' but it -was always open to the Board not only to. change ,the site of the docks,: bui:: not to have any. at all if it should so decide. And even if the old Board had made a mistake,.. it w-w not .too late forthe new Board'to; act;1 differently.'- ■ - - - "■'■;. '~" : " , ■ Mr Fish .expressed; bis opinion ak the last^ Imeetin^of the Board that the site of the docks? [was a wrong one, and he then had been assured by Mr Tewsley that the matter had been fully, 'dealt with by-the old Board,' and that after, •mature consideration it' was decided thattiift. docks should be on the tther side of Kattray*!street. . . .. "'"' ..' . ,V.?". •- ■ ../.' '■.y.-^.

1 Mr. Tewsley: I never, said' such a, thing.£ Mr Pish"'has misunderstood the whole thing1. It;was. the Works Committee: of; the present: Board that I said had considered the matter,. and we were in favour .of thiß side until the 'advantages of their: position were pointed' out:Though JMr E. B. Cargil^ may havo expressed the opinion which Mr John Gargill says he did,' Jyef I think that he was the only member o£ the old Board who" opposed putting the docks .whore they are proposed to he placed. It was never mooted before that they should he put at the upper end of the town. ; .";"■' : / :. ;'i/f ■■•■*'' : Mr -Samsat did not think it wastbo late for the deputation to ask the Board to alter the sits of the docks. As a member of the Harbour Board, he was jjrepared to give the matter every. ; consideration. He - was strongly o£~ opinion' that the site of "the. docks was too fatl down, and that business would be sacrificed by "". carrying out the docks on the ; position indicated. It did seeni a little ■ curious that the mercantile community should recogniss the .unsuitableiiess'-of the situation so late, but the inemofial presented that day showed that they were fully alive to it now, and that a, large portion of the mercantile community were opposed to the docks being located so far down. It was amatter-which should be considered by ther.Bou'd," and he .was prepared to give coiii sideration to it. -.'■'/■■<:'• .- : .':r

i Mr JASrE3 MlliSunderstood thattherewas a counter deputatios present,;: and the Bqiirdi Bhpuld hear what they had-to Bay/on,.thi*2 matter.-Uc.-i <-.im-. ■:.' ,-^ •.:■■•-•• -■■■■'•-'.'.^ : .■'.'■- "'■.•L-^-t ■

' uVIr-Paterspn {Pateraon"and•"Miiedd)! ■ I;" appear as one who is opposed; to tho.m^iKsori^li z and I trust that if it be'entertained at'all, you will postpone consideration oflt foi a week, «*

'OS'to1 allow a counter memorial tdbeprepared," ■asking that the docka'shall.iiot be removed. JEv«ry~ engineer who has reported, upon the mzattec during tha last, ten ;yearg placed the ■•docks where they are place'lon the present plans, and it was understood- by every mercan-tile-man in DuDedin that the^'should be there. -It is now said that they are. too far away, and ■ that th& expense of cartag'elwill be too great. But this is not so, for once the goods are placed ■on the dray the extra distance of- 100 to 200 jrards is no consideration, arid the carriage'of the goods which come up by the railway is paid the railway, and not by the merchant. , In iregard to the proposal to have long line 'of wharves instead of. the dockß,-I-doubt whether "that wocld suit in our'harbour.-as it is'exposed "to::th« north-east winds.: -.If ..tie Board fe^els 'disposed to give any countenance to the petition I trust that consideration of it will be postponed, in order to allow "us time to' get up a «sounter memorial.. '..-:'-. .' • ■ ;

Mr W. D. Sutherland was one of those who came to oppose the memorial which had been presented. He also asked for a postponement, arid was quite satisfied, from the influen•tial body living in the lower portions of the ;town, thai, even a moreymonerously signed memorial than that now submitted would be presented if : time were given/ '.He considered j ••that there were many reasons .why the Board j --should grant the postponement asked for." Ho Aad been given to understand that every survey which; had been made of the harbour, resulted an the docks being placed in their present posistion. He was not prepared now, or he might "he able to give some stronger reasons why the •docks: should remain: where it is proposed rto place them. They would see that their provperties would be materially enhanced by adhering to the present site, and he concluded by .asking for an adjournment of the question. Mr Burt had expected "that those ;:who 'brought forward the memorial would have r-giyen some strong , reasons for bringing this matter before: tne- Board.;:. He thought •sthat the proper parties to decide, a matter •■of. this sort were the Engineer: and ; his -associates. The plans had been submitted "toL. diffeient ' engineers -and ,;approved of, =arid now, at the last hour, a memorial was presented asking that they should be altered. "She memorial was the first he heard of a.desire , .^o change the position of the docks,: otherwise h« would have been prepared "with sufficient to show, why the site of; the docks -should not be altered. The arguments put forward showed a great deal of oriesidedness, as :it seemed from that memorial that' it was that the commercial part of Dunedin was always to be jammed up m a few streets. .But he hoped, in the course of a few years,, to iseeas raany business places north of Stuart .street as south of it. He! considered it unfair i*o bring all the, conveniences to. one portion of "the city, and thought that .'the. whole; of the -city where business was to be carried on should be considered. Mr Driver s&ys that ths docks "would increase the value of his (Mr Burt's) sections. Well, he bought them on that'under-.' -standing. Their chief : object in' appearing the Board that day was to ask for time, .for he felt confident that theyiwould be able to -adduce reasons in favour of the docks remaining where they were, as those contained in the memorial here before the*~Board. It was a -one-sided view of the whole .business to expect ~4hat the entire trade of Dunedin should be •■confined to Bond street, and he hoped to see trade extend to,the Water of Leith. One of ■4ihe docks was situated near Stuart street, and the other near St. Andrew .street, so they were -a long WiVf distant from Pelicket Bay. . : Mr Davie, asa saeinbeiof the. old Board, ■wished to state his impressions of what took ;jplacewhen Mr Simpson's plans were brought before the Board for approval.'_■_> He'hadnot -the~slightest idea that the sites there indicated were to be permanent. : Mr E> B, Cargill on "dihat occasion put his finger on the site of the •docks, and said that they were bo far.removed from the central position, of Dunedin as to be inconvenient. Mr Cargill withdrew his' opposition, only on its being represented that.the "docks were not intended to be permanent, and •sthat the Board's endowment consisted ef only -100 acres, and.that the docks.cpuld not be ;. placed on the south side of Eattray street; and • further, thafwhat is now called the Steam-boat Basin would be sufficient for. the trade of the -Port.; If they looked at the plans, they would -sea thiit a large area in the direction of Ander~son's Bay was set apart for the coal and timber "■trades, the greater portion of which was carried •on in the centre, around Stuart street. Were ithey to suppose that the whole of that trade "was to be transferred to Anderson's Bay ? He was quite sure that the Steam boat Basin consufficient bertbage accommodation for a -.long time to come. He was not one of those •who felt disposed to do away with the docks ■ -altogether, and would bo in favour of reserving i;he one at Stuart street. If any other were -required, it would be in the dim future/ It .'might become desirable to retain an area in -•-the situation of that indicated by the deputation, so that'it could be used for docks when .-required. He concluded by stating that he . never for a moment considered that the" dock --sites were permanently fixed, and it had to be • done now in consequence' of the Government ■calling upon them specifically to fix the site. The Chairman : Your statement does not •-tally exactly with your actions as a member of the old Board, as these plans were referred to •in the contract entered into last year. Mr Davie did not think that there, was any -obstacle in the way of the Board acting upon "this memorial. ; The Chaudtak : There has been a great deal ■■ of blame thrown upon the present Board.: ■, Mr.Davie :.There is no blame.thrown upon •tha bld'Boardi We simply draw your atten-;-tion to the matter. If there i 3 any blame attachable to any body it is to the old Board. The Chaikman : We have now heard what both sides of the deputation have had to say, -•,aud if any further information be gj[ven in re,gard to this question, the Board will take it .into consideration. After a few further remarks from His Wor- - ship the Mayor, in which he urged the desira-^ bility of having a contmu'ous line of wharves, ■ the discussion ended, it being understood that"the matter would again, come up Et the next of the Board. :■ ... ...".' '. MEMO. FKOM. THE FINANCE COMMITTJEE.,. The members of the Board then1 jeturned.tb "their usual meetiug room for the purpose of •■considering a memo, which had been received -from the Finance Committee. . •. •.

-Mr Fish thought that the discussion should be tra open one, as the subject was oneofcori...siderable importance, and involved a change in ■ the pilot service. While he had no objection to -discuss matters of detail in.'Committee, he did not think that course should be followed in -dealing with the other subject to which, he had ~.xeferred. : ■ •

Mr Jqhn Mills took the same view of the matter as Mr Fish. ..

Mr Tewsiey thought that the Board should -should go into Committee, . • :. After some further discussion jt was agreed that clause 3 of the mema. which was recom:~mended, aa follows, bhould be discussed in ■open Board: "To dispense with two pilots ■who have L 555 a-year, and to appoint as pilots, "when efficient, the masters of the tugs Kopu~tai, Jane, and Iron Age, giving them LI for -each vessel they bring in, not exempt." Mr Rattbat, was not prepared to discuss -i;his question before the Press, as the Finance did not bring it up as a report ■ which they were prepared to stand by. Mr Bamsay said that it was represented to "Captain Thomson by members of the Finance •Committee that there was a great desire on the part of the Board to economise in that department. And they earnestly urged upon him to 'loiow how economy could be practised without --sacrificing efficiency. The result was . the • clause above given, and he felt it due to Oapt. "Thomson to say that he would not have come -out with such a recommendation if it were.not for the pressure brought to bear upon him by "the Finance Committee. ■ He thought they might very well try the recommendation, as it was weli known that a great, portion of the pilot staff was not required; and it was also Tvell known that the masters of these tug •steamers which plied between the Heads and Dunedin vere thoroughly well qualified to pilot ships up to town. They would not receive a certificate of qualification until they "svould have satisfied Captain Thomson that iihey were qualified. He did notsee why they -should not take advantage of their services, Mr James Mills did not think that they should be called upon to settle this matter ■without having the entire proposal of the Finance Committee before them. He considered thatthe Finance Committee deserved great ■ credit for the pressure which it brought to bear • upon Captain Thomson, but he thought that it should turn its attention to other departments also. _ He moved—"That the references from • the Finance Committee in regard to the proposed reduction in salaries be referred back to them, and that they be asked to reconsider whether thay could not recommend reductions ■:in other departments, in the same manner as •was proposed to be done in the Harbour Master's department."

Mr Eamsa.t hoped that the Board would not pass that resolution. He advocated that they -should dispose of the proposal in regard to the reduction in the Harbour Master's department, and then they might subsequently be able to ■ submit a report in regr.rd to the Engineer's de ■partment; : Mr Mills explained that his motion was not intended as any slight upon the Finance Committee.

Mr Fish thought that, as the references were now before the Board, it would be discourteous -fco refuse'to consider them.' They could still movfi a motion in. regard to the' Engineer's department when this matter would have been ■settled.

Mr James Mills remarked that the references before the Board mentioned an increase "in other departments. After a few further remarks, it was agreed, <>n the motion of Mr Tewsley—" That, pending.the enquiry now beinginada in reference to •the Pilot Service, the consideration of the matthen under discussion b^e postponed." "

';;Tte;Board then:went into'.popamittee.