SITE OF THE PROPOSED DOCKS AND RAIEWAY GOODS STATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4743, 1 May 1877, Page 2

SITE OF THE PROPOSED DOCKS AND RAIEWAY GOODS STATION.

A special meeting of the. Chamber of Commerce was held yesterday afternoon in the Exchange Rooms, in Bond .street, for the purpose of considering, the,above, question.;: There were about 30 members present, Mr Tewsley was in the chair.

.., The£haibman : Gentlemen, the matter for the discussion of which we have been called together .this morning, is such a one that I can hardly act, as while it. is under. consideration, seeing that I. am . a member of the Harbour Board, and therefore, to a certain: extent, an interested party. ■'Moreover; I am the representative of the Chamber on the Bdard, and I ■would very much prefer that you should elect another Chairman for this occasion.

After a short discussion,': it .was ultimately decided that Mr Turnbull should act as Chairman. ' MrTewsley then vacated the chair in his favour. ' '

The.CHAiBMAN: Gentlemen, I think that it; says a great deal for the liveliness of the mem- ''■ bersof the Chamber that on a meeting being i held;to consider this question, the ordinary.chairman cannot take the chair.-':; That fact, I think, shows an amount of life and energy oni the part''of the "Chamber which is quite: refreshing to us._ This meeting. has . been.' called by a special requisition, to consider: the site of the proposed docks and railway . station. ...;■ ; You are all aware. that during the: past week a considerable amount of discus?ion i has taken place, arid a difference of opinion has ; been expressed in regard to the site of the pro-' . posed docks and railway station. Two different parties waited upon the Harbour Board, oho with the view of having the site as proposed on the plan alluded to, one more centrally situated; the other with the view of continuing the docks where.they are shown upon the plans. Ido mot think that I as chairman should say. much upon this subject, as I presume that both sides are prepared to submit resolutions setting forth. their views. As a member for a time of the old Harbour Board, I may say ihat I never be : lieved that such details as thepositionof the docks • were finally fixed. I was not a member of the Board as long as others, as I was Acting- i: Deputy Superintendent, and in that capacity \ was nominally Chairman of the Board. My impression was that there was no such thing as a fixed site decided upon for the docks. The fact that this matter was considered so fully by the Works' Committee of the new Board shows' that the old one had not finally decided the -questionof the" site. But if the old Board had done wrong, I dp not see why the mistake should be continued, or why the new Board should refuse to do what is right. I. will not take .up your time further, but will simply call upon membei-3 of the Chamber to take up the subject. * IVlr JoHtf Cargili,: I have to move the following resolution: —'• That the Qhamber of Commerce desires very strongly to urge; on the Harbour Board (1) that the site indicated for the proposed import and export docks in the : plan is quite unsuitable, being far removed from the centre of the commerce of the city, the merchants'offices, bond and other stores, Custom House, Post and Telegraph'Office3. .(2) That the basin marked in the said plan for : intercolonial arid iiiterprbvincial steamers is.the most convenient site for the accommodation of shipping, and.when the northern, the limit of this basin, is extended out to the point indicsted,it will give a berthage sufficient for all the shipping of the port at present, and for many years to come. (3) That when the shipping trade of the port increases so as to render \ ■the _ berthage within this basin insufficient, additional accommodation can easily be ob- - tamed by ussn£ the face line of walling now in course of construction from the end of the Kattray street. Jetty in the direction of the first dock, and continuing that farina- as required. ; (4) In carrying out the recommeudaticn of, the Chamber, care to be taken that nothing is clone in any way to', affect existing interests ■ to the prejudice .of the ; Board." -'.I. hays had my say on tliis matter already,; and it was faithfully reported in the papers, to whom I am very grateful. : I will not' go . over the same ground again in proposing this resolution. It has teen urged on behalf of the other, that it would be a gppd thing for the site to be distributed along a considerable frontage, and that one end of the town should not be benefited . more than the other. Who was the originator of the movement for harbour improvements, if not the merchants? It was they who brought "about the movement for having a Harbour Board, and -for bringing ships up to Dunedin in order to suit the convenience of. the public (and- of'Hhe'busi, ness part of the city... That being, done, it is certainly a strange argument to now. say; ■ Well-we will not regard the convenience^ of tta-public, nor,of warehousemen, nor of the Custom-House—we will have no regard for any. of :the*e. things^-and we -will fix upon-some other plan which' will benefit the town generally. It it is iriebnyenient to; the merchants,:, they I must follp\y doM'wiere ,vy© go."" To place'the '

docks as shown upon the plan is actually to remove the business and take it down to Pelichet Bay. There is one other point which 1 would like to bring under the notice of the Chamber, and it is this: Looking at. the plan itself, it appears to be/as the Chairman just now.Btated, a not very well considered plan, nu. merely an indication of what the-improve-menfa will be, as carried out by the Harbour Board. If that plan be carried out aaproposed, I ask you if it would not be a Very inconvenient one. Look at the distance which .would nave to be traversed to get down to the docks. I consider that in an economical and commercial point of view, it would, be a mistake to take so large an acreage as would be required for those docks out of the Board's endowment. A better idea was that which was BW« d by the Mayor, namely, that you should have one line of wharfage, extending it, if necessary, as far as Black JacKs Point. This would be sufficient to meet ths requirements xov a long time to come. I will now conclude by moving the resolution which I have read.

Mr.Gr. 0. Matheson said:' I beg to second the resolution- moved by Mr Cargill, and supported by that grentleman with his accustomed ability. While esteeming it a privilege to take part in the discussion .of this. question, which affects ihe mercantile community so much I may be allowed, without indulging in a commonplace, to express my regret that the advocacy of so important a matter should not nave oeen conferred upon some one more accustomed to reach the sympathes and secure tne conviction of men in public meeting assembled than it is my fortune hitherto to have done. .But the urgency and grave importance of the occasion is my excuse. When an emergency like the present arises sufficiently weighty to rudely awaken men from their selt satisfied apathy to what is taking place in their midst: when a course of action is contemplated which, rf pursued, would have the effect of: changing the existing state of things-then I think it be hovea every man to bestir himself and gird on whatever armour he may have and do battle for The and interests of the community of which he is a part The proposition, as contained in the resolution, is that the site selected for the proposed import and export docks does not meet the convenience of the mercantile community of Dunedin. I presume, Sir, that the most rabid opponents of the memorial presented the other day to the Harbour Board will admit the object of providing dock accommodation at all is to place greater facilities .within the reach of the mercantile community. The question we have to consider is whether, by placing the docks between otuart and St. Andrew. streets, greater facilities and conveniences will be afforded those who flow carry on the export and import trade of this_ commercial city; and with a view to dispassionately view the bearings of the question it will be necessary to consider in what portion of Dunedin, geographically speakin", constitutes the centre of the export and import *v -v* .•Becatase ifc mv?i bo borne in mind that the business and te.ding community generally are not so interested in the subject, and care must be taken that this element be kept out of discussion. A writer in the Evening Star, who scarcely conceals his identity under the worn de plume of " Observer," and who wishes to prejudge this matter of the docks by bis bad grammar and coarse vulgarity, puts as the centre of the commercial" part of the city the CUrgill Monument. Any_ person unbiassed cannot bat see that!_ this is not the case. Rather the Cargill -Monument forms nearly the northern boundary of the location of tfo commercial interests, as affected by this dock question. ■ The import and export trade is unquestionably; situated, with very- few andsofitary exceptions, between Dowling street on the north and Manor place on the south; ard that the area within these limits is quite sufficient, to locate the import and export trade for years to come. No doubt gentlemen whose business premise" are situated north of this line, aixd those who, taking advantage of. the apathy which has hitherto characterised the merchants of the city on this matter,-have been speculating on land contiguous to the proposed docks, arei particularly displeasedthat our indifference did not continue somewhat longei,"but these people can scai cely say that they form a majority of mercantile men of this city, nor wiU; I hope, the three gentlemen who advocated their claims so niodestly before the Harbour Board the other day follow the illustrious example of the three Tooley street tailors, and say that they are the mercantile men'of Dunedin. Well, Sir, on" the-principle of the greatest good to the greatest number, we are entitled to have the docks placed in such a position as will afford the greater convenience to those connected with experts and imports. Aiiy person glancing at the plans of the Harbour improvement scheme would be quite justified in coming to the conclusion that the existence of the present warehouses was quite ignored. Everything, as a rule, looks well on paper. Bonded warehouses and ship-building yards where only exists swamp at present, and these are to spring up" utterly regardless "of the vested ml terests of the-; present community, utterly ignoring the thousands that are invested in buildings and land. But our opponents say, y.ou.must.now give way before t>ie edict of reform which has gone forth. And why should we give way—;tbe majority to the minority? Why should ourijnterests be skcrified, _qur rights rudely invaded, and all for the purpose of giving dock accommodation to the merchants in the vicinity "of Stuart street, whose number and the extent of their transactions cannot for years to come.be deemed sufficiently important to warrant the construction of a dock at their doors ? -What we want to have a right to is docks to be brought to us—not we taken to the docks. We have priority of claim. We are in possession, therefore you nvust consider us in the: matter. Putting the docks between Stuart and St. Andrew streets looks like catering for posterity and ignoring; the present generation altogether. . Doubtless, when Dunedin becomes in the" looming future what we all ardently ex peck—a city bt hundreds of thousands of inhabitants—it will be necessary to construct docks in tha direction of Peliehetßay; but to conserve tho interests of, and at. the same time to provide dock facilities to the mercantile community, you must look elsewhere for a site. And "this naturally brings up the question, What other site is available ? As has already been embodied in tne resolution and read by the mover, the basin for steamers should be so enlarged by the extension of its southern side as to accommodate the whole of the shipping; and, if this is done, it will be sufficient for many years to come. There is, T understand, an engineering impediment to the carrying out of-this plan, and I believe that it will be found that tho Engineer to theßoard^is not so committed to the present-plan as to view with anything but pleasure such modification as would facilitate trade and conserve the interests of the mercantile community generally. The latter .part of the.resolution, or series of resolutions, should strengthen the wavering and those otherwise interested in taking our side of the question. We do not recommend that anything should be dene to prejudice of the Board; but we believe that there is nothing in the, existing state of the _ contracts that cannot be got over with business tact and address. ' The merchants :of Dunedin are accused of haying shown in this matter ah unaccountable apathy in this dock question. This, unfortunately, is too true, although this apathy has been more apparent than real. The subject has been certainly kept before the public for a very considerable time ; but I very much question whether there cannot be found an excuse in the inability of the commercial mind to follow tha intricacies of officialism and professionalism during the progress of theineasure through allits process of filtration. We have a representative of this Chamber at the Harbour Board, and I think it is but fair that we should look to him for a representation of the feeling of this Chamber at the Board, whatever his own feeling on the. matter may be. To his sense of honour, which is high, we may leave the matter with the greatest confidence, arid being well assured that, whatever his own views on the subject may be; He will bring these of the Chamber fairly before the meeting. I have much pleasure in seconding the resolution. ...■•■•

,Mr K. G-rLUES: I confess that I feel that we, as a Chamber, are being placed in a false position in this -matter.' The subject now before the meeting is one ivhicb. has occupied the attention of Dunedin, and of the merchants of Dunedin, for a good many yeara. A great many people outside the mercantile classes have the greatest interest in bringingup vessels to Dunedin, and have narrowly watched all that has been goiug on. When this question of fixing a site for the docks wns being considered, the Chamber never expressed any opinion upon it; and I think, so long as we are called together in this absurd way to discuss matters as they may turii up, we will never have things properly done. Now, when a little excitement is got up on the subject, I do not wish to cast a stone at either one side or the other, mainly from/consideration of what the eftect will be in regard to private property, and not out of regard for. public consideration, it is brought forward.— (Jfoj. no.) All the arguments which have been used to day are of this nature,; and refer to the interests of -those who have bought property in one place, andthose who mayhave stores in'another part of the town. I have not heard a single argument adduced which goes to show that this matter is boing considered on broad, general, and public grounds. As a me'siber of the Chamber of Commerce,' I deprecate the discussion of the question approached in such a spirit, and in such a way. I think that the matter. should have been; considered long ago, when it was brought under the notice of the public. :Is it' wise, now, when excitement has been got up about it, fer us, as a Chamber, to come forward and commit ourselves in ' regard to this question ? Ido not think that it is. ~ There is a great deal to.be said upon both sides of the question. The gentlemen who have this matter in their ultimate' decision, are men/who have loDg had it under, their, consideration;;'^. What .weight.' will' any resolution of this Chamber have, in reference to .the question'of the: site ;of docks? Three-fourths of the members of the Ghamberare the men who signed the firstmemorial, and who are interested in the import tind the export trade of the town, Are ypii- likely to; bring.

any more influence to bear by getting the Chamber to pass such a resolution as that now before us? People will say, the Chamber of Commerce is a second edition of the memorialists. Therefore, I think that you are dragging the Chamber through the mud by bringing tma matter forward to-day. As lam now on my feet, I may as well express my opinion upon the case, and I will do so frankly and fully.; There are two points of view from which the question may be regarded. First of all, it may have been a very wrong thing, and detrimental to some, but it ia—ls this the time to bring it up?—(Yes, yea.) I think action has been taken altogether, too late. IE there is to be any finality at all to the proceedings of public bodies, if we are not to'-have a thing done to-day and reversed to-morrow, if we are not to be the public laughing-stock for the whole Colony, we should not seek to undo what has been publicly considered and endorsed by every engineer who has ever looked into the matter, and which has been carefully- considered by Ihe Harbour Board and submitted to the General Government engineer and approved of,.and also approved of by the.Governor in Council Plans have been drawn up, and reports have been sent Home, and loans raised on the strength of what, has been done. "The ground in dispute has been given as security for these loans, and now it is proposed to reverse the plans upon which this was done. # Mr John Cabgill: The proposed alteration improves the value of the security. Mi- Gillies : We will see whether it im proves it. It was stated .in the Evening Star that this improvement will cost L 30,000. I do not know, whether that is a correct estimate or not. At all events, it will cost a considerable amount. If the bond-holders find out that you are going to spend L 30,000 more upon this matter, will your security be improved? Will your security be improved by its being known that your loan has been laid out in forming docks on the area from which it was "expected that the Board would derive its principal ? Where is the Harbour Board to got the revenue from to pay interest and sinking funds upon loans if it do not reclaim these lands and put them into the market? These considerations affect the matter seriously, and it is for the.: Harbour Board, and it alone, to decide upon the matter. It is not a question which so seriously affects the mercantile community as has been represented. This morning, I put my compass on the plans, and measured the distance between the Railway Station and Mr. CargiU's store, and found that it was 27 chains in a straight line. The distance which it is proposed to shift the Railway Station is just 25 chains. So you ccc that the.Station is proposed to be put a less distance north-west than it is from Mr Cargill's store. Take Messrs Dalgety and JN ichol a premises — these are close to the Eailway Station. Do you mean to say that Messrs Cargill and Go. suffer any detriment from being so much farther from the Railway Station than Messrs Dalgety and Nicholls. The former can supply their customers with goods just as cheap as the latter. If ycu do not put the Railway Station in the" place where it is shown on the plans you will have to put it 35 chains I further south. There ia another important consideration, and it is this: If the Railway Station be put at the foot of Stuart street, as it is proposed to be," theVpeppleih the south need not^ be deprived of the convenience of getting their, goods, because the Government has made prcv^ion for a Railway at the south end of the town, so that merchants at tha south end of the city can have their goods (brought along and delivered there. But no such provision has been made in regard to the north end of the town; When you come to look at • all these things you will see that there is a great deal more to be said upon the matter than appears on the surface. The reasons which I have given here today areweighty reasons. lam not prepared to say that some detriment will not result from placiDg the docks_there," but just consider how these sites are situated elsewhere. Are goods stations brought alongside of merchant's stores ? Does a railway goods station add to the value of property? : As far as my knowledge goes I believe that it does not. In Melbourne you do not find the most valuable part of the town, or merchants' stores, alongside of the Railway Statiou.v In Christchurch the Rail way Goods Station is outside of the town. In fact, for some time the principle followed in the construction of railway stations is;-tor place them outside of towns.-' I beseech you ;to consider that the great object is to get the shipping up to Dunedin. It is a question of getting your goods at Port Chalmers or .getting them at Stuart street. it is worth while to sink the pettyquestion whether they are to be delivered in proximity to this house or that. Every alteration must cause delay. The delay which has already taken place in the dredging of the Harbour has told upon your trade, and Christchurch and-other ; places are taking it frocu you because: they are in a better position than you. I was one of the first to call attention to the necessity of bringing ships up to Dunedin, and I wrote a great deal about the I matter, and watched it closely, and have always taken a deep interest in.it. If you value your trade and wish to see it prosper do not do anything which will delay the bringing of the ■ shipping, up to Dunedin. If the site of the docks '.be.al.teredjaelay.jwm.be the. result. .1 riotice-tfeat-the walling is ~inoluded~in the contract, already signed, and that: contract will of necessity have to be altered if. the sites be removed. : I have no doubt but the slighest alteration ; will involve a delay of 12 or 18 months. If you lose time you lose money, and you deprive the' Harbour Board of the opportunity of : getting a revenue to pay'their debts, and cast a doubt upon the stability of ,the whole-matter. All the arguments which have been adduced on the other side are argu^ ments relating- to Ihe value of property; but these I maintain should not be considered in connection with"thif matter.;. It would be unwise for the Chamber pf Commerce to meddle with the nutter, and : it: should say to the disputants— Go and settle this matter with the Harbour Board. ;Had the matter been brought up in a regular manner when it was first "made public, then.we could hive dealt: withifcf 'I move—" That the "consideration of this question be adjoiu-hed until another time." V .'".',

• Mr R,. Patxbson : I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment which has been proposed ly Mr Gillies; ■ I think -that it is quite out of place forthis'Chamber to give expression to any opinion on the subject of the site of- the docks. As Mr Gillies stated, three-fourths of those who constitute the Chamber of Commerce have, signedthe memorial which was presented to the Harbour' Board- -The docks; are not SDoken of ib^day, and; I hear :th.atj the ships ;:are: 'to r be Tpu't; in the -basin which has been referred : to. But I consider that it would-be impossible. to: put English ships into ity as it,will not be deep enough. The piles are only driven to a certain depth, and if an attempt be made to dredge it deeper, the piles will give:way on each side. I quite coincide with the remarks that we must look to the future, Ten or fourteen years ago, the business of Dunedih was comprised between the.coraer; of High, street and. the Market Reserve, but since then it has gradually expanded, year by, year, until it has reached its present dimensions.: I maintain that business people north of Rattray street are in a better position than the merchants of 12 or 14 years ago were, and therefore I do not see why there should not ha as large business done in George street in the course of 12 orls yeara' after this. I think that the.Harbour .Board should look.to the future. • I have no doubt that Mr Scoular and Mr Matheson would like the d6cksto.be situated alongside of their stores. Then, as Mr Gillies put it, if the, docks be removed from Stuart street and brought up here, where is the Harbour Board to get.the money from. to meet its liabilities. Money has been borrowed on the good faith that this land would be reclaimed, and should the Board go into the market for loans agoin, it will stand in quite a different position from the last occasion. I have much pleasure, Mr Chairman, in seconding Mr Gillies's amendment, that the consideratiou of the question be adjourned.

Mr Oliver: The object of.the Chamber of Commerce is to'conserve the interests of the mercantile community which it represents, and if it has failed in' this respect it 13 about; time that it arose to a. sense of its duty. Thata serious peril doe 3 threaten the mercantile community, I have'not/.the slightest doubt. ' The. streets and' buildings of the' city haw been' made and erected at considerable expense, and are the mercantile community now to stand by and see the docks placed so far away as it is now. proposed to place them? It seems tome to be absurd in the extreme. After seeing offices of every description, professional and mercantile, raised.about this centre, are:we to sea them all reduced, in value by the centre of the mercantile interest being' removed some distance from them? This is a thing wh^ch we should protest against, and if we have hitherto remained inactive, that is all the more reason that we should now bestir ourselves. It seems to me that the resolution proposed by Mr Cargill makes out a good case for a reconsideration of this matter; by the Harbour Board; We have the Chairman's expression of opinion, as amembsr of the old Harbour Board, that the question of- site was not finally settlad, and similar testimony ■ has been given by other members of the Board, so we may fairly cod'-'----eider that the question was not settled. And even it it had been settled, that is no reason why finality should be considered as fravinir. been arrived at now that we have been callect upon lo recbnsjder the matter. Tfrefe is scarcely an institution in the history of-this Province which'has. not been diverted from ife original purpose.: The Exhibition Building has been turned into-a hospital, and the Post Office has been.; coiicverted into ai; University And are we cow to consider the matter of tfie site ot the docls settled, because it has been.so considered by.some? Mr Gillies Baid thatif the plans of the docks were altered, the secimty given by -the..Board, to landowners would be depreciated,: but I maintain that the oontiary would be.the case, and that true economy cbasista m conserving the value of the buildings already erected. -The ■utmost that' Mr Gilliep made ont was; that some further consideration should be givea to tbia matter generally.'"1- ;C ;

Mr Fish : I would not address the Chamber upon this question if it were not for one remark which was-made by Mr Gillies, in which he put it as a query, whether a resolution passed by the Chamber would have any weight with vie Harbour Board.? As a member of the .Harbour, Board I have no hesitation in saying that I would give full consideration to any suitable and respectful resolution paeaed by this Chamber. , I recognise the fact of the .ttaroour Board having been originated an* earned for. the purpose of extending the commerce of the port. If the company of gentlemen arounu me have no right to say anything upon a matter, like this I would like to know wnatportion of the community should guide the Harbour Board for the purpose of guidine it to a decision in regard to this question. Ab it was aptlyput by. Mr Oliver, the commercial centre or Dunedin has been created by the energy of our merchants.- Shall we, then, throw away the result of that industry and enterprise by establishing docks inapositwa so far removed from .the centre of commerce ? and not for the purpose of doing any good to the mercantile community, but for the purpose of raisings the value of property in the immediate neighbourhood of the site of the proposed' docks, for that is one of the reasons which have ™T fS, c J or H^ the docks at the «orth end of the town. I shall now proceed to explain my position as a member of the Harbour Board, in connection with the matter. I am free to S^ft? 06! 115'8 been elected a member of that body, the question of the site or the proposed docks ias never once been brought %hll' "** been taken for granted, whether rightly or not I cannot say, that t& site of the docks was fixed. We cannot get information on that Board without having it dragged out and sucked out We never Ml this question placed before us, and it was re^ garded.as one signed, sealed, and delivered/and le Ron P^™ n M?T reCeipt °f a WegraniW S twwS^rt 1 £ean> our eyes were °p^e<i to the fact that the' Government did not consider thematter settled. The meaning which! took from that telegram was, that the St was requested to reconsider the matter I did not consider the position of the docks suitable to the commerce of the city, and I- moved a resolution that the matter should be reconsidered, rieu-the Chairman of the Works Committee assured me that thewhole question had been fully considered, and that his own opinion was that the docks should bo in this direction, but he found so many obstacles in the way that he came to the conclusion that the site indicated was that where the docks should be placed.- ;I understood ~ that gentleman to say that - the Board had settled the question, and I was quite content with that assurance. I: asked one member pf the Works Committee—l, mean-Mr ( Walter—if the question of the site for the docks had been brought before the.Works Gommittee; and his reply was that it had been before them, butrttjsuch away as to lead them to believe t»at the matter had been settled. Then, takinr Mr Tewsley's statement as correct; that this question had been settled by the present Works Committee, then: I say that that shows it had never been brought up in the Harbour iJoard, and therefore the whole matter is open: for discussion still, and that we are not asking to undo what was done yesterday.' If the old Harbour .Board. has not settled it. X say gat it has not been settled by the new Harbour Board, and therefore we, 'as' a Haruour Board,_and. you, as a Chamber of Commerce, have the right to commence deHoiSo, if it is desirable to do so. The engineer had to put the docks somewhere, and he put thenrin toat direction. 'When these plans were drawn. Ita Board,had not a piece 'of Land southiif Rattray street Jetty; therefore it would have beenunwisetoindicate the site of the docks, where the Board had no property. I never heard a^ greater piece ot'special pleading than. j that' advanced by-my friend Mr Gillies, I could not help r thinking that this special pleadmgwasa family, inspiration, because I recently read the same arguments." '"."".' '■ "■ - Mr Gillies r'MrTwh is at perfect übertyto refer to me or my family in any way he pleases, but he must not call me " my f rienu." . ; i^rriSH: Ic«naffordtodispense withiuxury. It was merely a figure of speech.. I was merely using;the ordinary courtesies of debate, and"l shall be careful not to offend in that way again. I say Mr Gillies's remarks to-day were a family inspiration, for the same, though in different phraseology, have emanated fx.om our respected Secretary of the Harbour Board. ; It wpuldbe out of placetb say anything further about that here, or concerningother matters which I shall bring before the Harbour Board. I have a duty to perform, and I will do it. inference has been made to the article in the EveningStar,.but I, do; riot, think that we>eed go far to find.out.who the,writer of thatjarticle is.4 I think that it is only of a pieWwith a great deal which has characterised the existence of the Board for a long time pa3t, and which we are now beginning to find out. Iwishalsoto refer to another1 remark which- MrGillici made. He said that this Chamber should sink all petty considerations of getting the docks here or, there, but, it appears to me that the only reason given" why the Board should hare the docks so far north is that some people hare bought land there, and they expect it-to be jaigedin; valueif the docks are located close to it. Wbai necessity was-thero^for-placing onlyone ship upon a berth at a time 1 Why should not they be placed one; two, or. even three deep ? ' There is ho reason'why'it should not be done here. The .only reason' is that a certain Company in this city wish to monopoliaeftTie jettyyso that their ships may luxuriate at it' In my opinion .the interestwhich hrs accrued in this important centre must be conserved, and I donotthmk that the charge of selfishness can lie against the members of '*;'this I Chamber for doing that which they have a perI feet right to do. There were many reasons which' tended :to-take away the attention of the' mercantile community from thi3 matter^ but there is an old adage which says " Better late thanneveri" ■ : ■ ■ . -':

At this, stage of the proceedings -the Chamfcw adjourned for an hour. On resuming,- ■; ■'-■.. ,: -i£~ Mr Reeves said: I wish to mdye'an.ainendment ,on the-, motion which- has-been proposed by Mr * Cargill, and it somewhat slightly differs from it It leads me to explain whsit my vie ws uppn this question are. I think everyone; interested in _the:welfare of the City should'atthe present time give, expression to' his views upon this question. The first resolution proposed by Air Cargill sneaks of thepo3i- :- tion of the docks. I cannot endorse that part of the resolution; it may possibly be that tb.By are' unsuitable to some extent, but there is no question that were the docks erected at the site proposed, there being no corresponding provision made for'the; larger class of ships, not'only would the; importers and exporters :be inconvenienced, but it would have a very detrimental effect upon tLe value of property. In considering this question; there is no use in shutting our eyes to the fact that many are actuatedby pecuniary' feelings; and; there is" no Question that if the docks be removed to the place proposed on the. plans, that property in this immediate neighbourhood will be very seriouslyinjured. ' You have only v- to remembeF what Dunedin vras nine.or ten yea^ ago, and where the,centre of: business was in these days;The larger portion of it was then ;in Stafford and Walker, streets, but np\v merchants have* their warehouses near the shipping. -There is no question but in the course of time land will become'more'valuable in the immediate vicinity, of: the decks.; But I cannot endorse the motion that'the position of the docko will be unsuitable, because.'l believe it to be a fact which, cannot be gainsaid that all the engineers who have considered this iratter have come to! the conclusion that about the position'in which Mr Simpson has placed the docks is about the very best that, could bechosenl But, as I before stated, jtnyL view of the matter is that it is a great mistake to construct, docks at all You have only to look at your: Harbour and ypxi wiE see tnat in the vsry worst weather there is no sea which would injure vessels lying alongside of th 6 wharves placed in any position" vi the Harbour. Those who know what Hobson's Bay is are aware that vessels lie alongside, of the Railway Pier there exposed to • five or tea times the sea to which they would be exposed here,, and. yet they are perfectly-secure. According to' the "plans proposed,' there are 30 acres for the .two docks, the area of each being 15 acres. !i You will find thai; the presentbasin for' intercolonial steamers contains an arevof 27| acres, and it if also intended that this basiu shall be dredged to a depth of 17ft at low water, this: would: give ace Jininodaiion to theiaajority,in fact to the large ships which frequent Port Chalmers. You have in, that basin, a berthage ' cf: 4380 ft, which' would, I think, b3 sufficient for "a good many years to come. Now, the amendment which t propose is as .follows :—'' That in the opinion of' this Chamber, it is desirable that the proposed. plans of the Harbour Board for docks ba altered, so_.as_to provide that the present; steamer .basin extending from the end of" Rattray street Jetty to the end of Jetty street Jetty, be.deepened to. afford immediate accommodation for the large class of vessels expected; to come tip when the deep-water channel is dredged. That one continuous line of wharf be constructed from the end of Rattray street : Wharf towards Pelichet Bay asiar as Albany, i Btre'eti and that1- when trade requirements de 4 | mandi' that> then one continuous wharf be constructed south towards Andersen's;; Bay;" If ; this plan were adopted, you would have a basin ■ or a dock sufficient to accommodativa large ■number of vessels, and you would aiso have one coatinnous'wharf to Albany street, and which would give a irontage of 4000 feet, which, added;:to the frontage of the basin, would amount to 83,000 feet altogether. This plan would also have the effect of causing the pro-, perties of those situated north of Rattray street^td'.be,-in the course, of timo, brought .close to the shipping. Then,if you look at the piatteE'lrom. a Harbour Board point of .view, and; that wsts,one strongly dealt with.Jjy.Mr 'Grilliea, Xam of opinion that the fact, -or alter^ ing:-thesaplana.will not affect the.credit;o^tna" •Board'foiie • iota; la fact; I thibliithatitho,! 'contrary-would1 be• theease, as there;ivill Jb» ■ iabout3o acres of valuable land'availabley and-: l!whichwillbeworthXßo,oooor,tloo,Coo. TM

earn would go a long way towards making the continuous wharf to which I alluded, and besMesrffie effect would be to give a line of frontage to the mercantile warehouses, Suppose a sgrain merchant, purchases or leases from the '^Harbour Board an allotment of land. He then •erects thereon his warehouse, and accumulates Ms grain; when he has got sufficient, he brings •up a vessel and loads it, and the same course -would-be followed with coal and timber mer ■chants. Would not this be: more convenient than the plan proposed by the Harbour Board? You will find that the coal and timber docks =are situated somewhere round towards Anderson's Bay, but do you for one moment suppose «ihal you can drive the : coal and timber trade Txrand to that dock ? You will also find the 'bonded warehouses situated at the head of the -docks; but is it to be supposed that because 'these are so marked on the;plan, the Board ts bound to carry the plans accordingly? : Cer--tainly not. Aa a member of the old Board, "my view of the matter was that the Government endorsed the plans laid before it, but that "it was optionable with the Board to alter any "thing, so long as no more reclamation should ~be carried out than would be considered safe, "laving'regard to the tidal scour at the Heads. That was a perfectly fair position. After some further remarks, he proceeded'to say: Hook -»t this.matter to see now it will affect the city -of Dunedin in the future, and you may depend ■upon it that it the plan which 1 have suggested '"foe .not carried out, but docks built, itwUlbe in years to come, :. .. • Mr Pish remarked that the engineer said "thatif the line of one continuous wharf should "too adopted, the vessels would be exposed to r-sbutb>west winds, which would brsik the -wharves to pieces. But I do not think "that there would be any fear of such "taking place, but, on the contrary, • vessete ■would be able to lie there with safety in -all weathers; and that, as.trade required it, "4he wharfage accommodation could be extended rnorth and south. If .this were done you would Save sufficient accommodation, for all ships may come to ' Dunedin for the next 3half-cer.tury. I move the amendment which -I; read. . . -~..■' ;"Mr "Davie did not think that the amendment -could be regarded as such. 1.-Ths Chairman said that was his opinion ■of it also. It was, however, for the Chamber -tfo decide. With the consent of the meeting, Mr Reevss -■then withdiew his amendment. Mr Tewsley: A statement haa been made by Mr John Cargill that this Chamber was in -strumental to the formation of the Harbour Board. Now, as Mr John Cargill was away from Dunedin at the time action was taken for "the constitution of the Board, he is not in a position tc spet'k authoritatively. I think Mr M'Neil and Mr Percy Neill will bear me out "that we worked very hard to get the Chamber -.of Commerce take the matter in hand. It was when the Chamber failed that a meeting was Held in Mr M'Neil's office, in September, 1873. Mr Robert Gillies took the matter up and pashed it forward, and a Committee of six or seven persons was appointed-at the meeting. "They took up the work and pushed on the for of the Harbour Board. Since then the -Chamber of Commerce has taken no interest wfiatever in the Harbour Board. Now, at the "last moment, in a spirit of panic, they are taking -=an interesD in the work of the Board. I say as ■a merchant and a member of the Harbour Board that the Chamber is now acting in a most, selfish spirit, and we are really wanting to ask the Harbour Board to reconsider.its decision, after the plans have been matured by "-the old Board. . The Government has refused ■to'let us have the chance of altering them. We said: "We want to put these docks approximately on tbe plan;" bat the Government refused that proposal, and insisted upon having the plans thought out maturely and de- • ■cided upon. .From that-date to:this, I challenge anyone to .say that there .has been one word said in opposition to the site of the import andexport docks. Allusion has been made to -?the timber and coal docks, the. import and export docks. Tt does not iollow that each dock will be devoted to its specific purpose alone. 'The Engineer's reason for putting the timber ■ •and coal docks where they are marked on the plan was because of the light draught of water, xhe whole cost of the Harbour 'improve.iiients is estimated at L 650.000. But it is' 'not to be supposed that all that is- to be expended at once, or that all the im--provements are to be earned out within a short time. Mr Fish, with his usual fluency, acd with even more than his usual inaccuracy, referred, among other things, to Mr Walter. -Now, Mr Walter is one of the mosi, thoughtful, intelligent, andcaxeful men on the Board, and until he tells me himself that he did not kndw what was being done on the Works Committee I am bound to think that Mr Fish is, as usual, inaccurate. Reference has been made to Mr ..E. B. Cargill's action on the old Harbour Board,.but ; if, he was outvoted, that was the •decisibn of theß6ard. It is too late in the day to aay that his name is. to have atalismanic • effect,: and that we must bowdown befcre the mention of it. If Mr E. B. Cargill was here I am confident that he would refuse to have all -^these. honours put upon him. I may state that Mr Cargili was a party to the plans from the :£is't to the last, and that he acted in the most r.UDselfisb. manner, and never desired to see the ■ docks carried to the south end of the town. I know Mr Davie backed up.what Mr John •Cargill said the other day, but what MrE. B. -CJargill opposed was the site fired in the 100 -acres previously granted to the Board. When he was put on the Board one jof the_ first things .Jie'.did was to .protest against that site. When Mr,. Cargill became a member of.the Board "the plans were in. the future. The Engineer- rightly refused to disclose anything, --and we had: to wait—Mr Cargill amongst ■ thenuinber—until these plans were ready. It be borne in mind that we then had only 100 acres of an endowment. We meant to get -400 acres, but we told the Engineer that he was not to mind that, but must put the docks, in "the proper place—that he must put them wherever he thought was the best position. -.Soon after, Mr Cargill came to the Board, and ~ the plans, after a short time, were produced. We had a good deal of discussion upon them, .and Mr Cargill either moved or seconded that ~the'plans should be received and lithographed. We had to send them up to Wellington very -•^aoon, because the General Assembly wa3 .•sitting,: and: our friends there were trjing to -get some legislation in our fp.vour. We passed -S1 resolution, stating that these plans were approximately the sort of thiug we wanted, and .we sent up the plans to Wellington. Mr "Cargillhappened to be going up to Wellington at "the time, and he very kindly offered to facilitate the business. When at Wellington, he saw the Hon. Mr Richardson, the engineers, and others, -and helped the Board considerably. He tele- , graphed to us that there would be no opposition -on the part of the Government, and that we had better send up our secretary. We did so ; bur secretary did the best he could for us; and •we were informed that everything was in proper -order, and the thing would be.carried out as we wanted it. But afterwards a message came from the Government saying, " Your plans are -onlyprovisional arid approximate. We cannot take the plans in this form. There are certain .^derations you must make, and these being made, we are perfectly agreeable to pass the plans after you have thoroughly decided upon them." The matter was again brought before -■th'e-.Board, the plans were thoroughly discussed, -and the plans were decided upon as they are . now before us. They were ei.dorsed by the '■Governor in Council, and finally adopted with--out a single dissentient voice—not even Mr -Cargili dissenting. Mr Cargill acted by the - Board in a ,nost honourable, energetic, and unselfish spirit. Mr Cargill was a party to ■the-"- adoption of the plans. The only • condition he ever made was that he thought it only, fair to the south end of the town that re--clamation should also be done at that end. "That lias also been decided on by the Board. I ■ would not have it for a moment thought that Mr Cargill has acted in the selfish manner which I feel is being imputed to him at the present moment. It has been asked—lf the -old Board ever fixed on the plans, how is it that the new Board ever thought of them? I Tvish to state a few facts to clear up thut diffi"Culty. The members of the Board waited on Mr'Blair, in order to have the question de- • cided as to whore the railway goods shed was to be. I went to Mr Blair myself, full of the idea •of having the railway goods shed along the line •■ of. Crawford street. I found that he was averse "to ithat idea, and that he was in favour of - taking the goods shed down to the neighbourhood of Stuart street, iind all I ciould say would not persuade him that Crawford street was the right place. Presently Mr Carruthers came '-down, and we resolved to wait upon him and Blair. To my great astonishment, Mr Carruthers was also in favour of having the goods Tshed along Crawford street, but he said, "Have yo"a thoroughly considered the fact that if we put the goods shed there you must change your docks ?" I confess that that was a new idea to me. I had not looked at it in that light. I believe I am right in saying that Mr -C/arruthera held to his opinion, and Mr Blair -also ; but the upshot was that when Mr Carruthers went away the matter was left in ths hands of Mr Blair to be settled. We had then r-nothing more to dc but to send to the Government and get permission to lease the land that was not in use. Mr Simpson and Mr Blair w6nt inio the matter thoroughly, and the '. Engineer was strongly inclined to think that Ttha present plan was the proper one, and Mr Blair also agreed with that view. We are tahown that it would cost a very considerable .amount of money to bring the docks up to the •flouth end. ■ I thinK the cost of putting the -docks there would be L 25,000, and it would •cause a delay of 18 months ov two years in bringing the large ships up to Duiiedin. Another point of great consequence is that we jhave an important contract with Mr Proudfoot. We have indicated what will be the reclaimed area, and it is very important that we should not run the risk of doing anything to damage our position in .connection .with,.the..contract. .Not only have we mado the first contract with Mr Proudfout, but we have all' but closed a further contract with him for; a: retaining wall ilong the line of the proposed docks, and;!.am

convinced that Mr Proudfoot will not forego ;his position except for a very considerable sum. .In order to carry out the undertaking of the old <™ • witl* Mr CarffiM» I may say that the jMaitland street contract, which the late ProiVincial Council entered into with the Corporation, has been taken over by the present Board,, so that in all probability reclamation will take place from Jetty street southwards, and so the undertaking with Tvlr Cargill will be faithfully redeemed. You must understand clearly what ia meant by having the goods shed in Crawford street. It must either commence at Eattray street and run past Jetty street without a break. ; as far as the cross street which runs by Guthrie and Larnach'a stables, or it must begin at j Jetty street, and run right down to the Recreation Ground. There is anoiher thing, to be considered, and it weighed very much with the iWorks Committee in. coming to a decision. 'That is the fact that the hilb at the south end :of the town go down very close to the "water. You have thus room only for two streets, and all the traffic in connection with the docks would have to be borne by those two streets. :You^ have to look to the future, and to consider whether those two streets would be .sufficient fcr the traffic ten years hence. It is [argued that the cost of carriage will be greater if the docks are placed near Stuart street. I jdeny that that will be so. ; I know that it costs ■my firm no less for carriage now that we are opposite the Bailway Station than it did when ;we were ia Stafford street. But even supposing that it cost 2d per load extra to carry goods .from the docks as laid down on the plan, it would only cost L 25.000 for over three million ; loads. I feel convinced that we as a, Chamber ;wi!l make a very great mistake if we persist in ■asking for an alteration of the present plans. ,'Looking at older cities, we do not find that ■property is most valuable near the docks or j railway stations. We always find that property is most valuable where the trade and ;i commerce is—where goods are bought and sold. iOne speaker has suggested that I sit in the : Harbour Board as the delegate of this Chamber. I was elected by a very large majority of the Chamber, andl wenttothe Harbour Board to use my intelligence, and the best powers I have, in order to come to a rig_ht decision. Without any vanity, I can claim to have given more time to the business of the Harbour Board, and ■to this important question of decks, than any other ten men in town. If Igo to the Harbour Board, I must use my own discretion. I 'do not go there to be the delegate of any man. :T can conceive only one possible ground, for ■doing what we are now urged to do. That is a ;most narrow and selfish principle. I am, not paying that those who are pushing this are iictihg in that spirit; but if lam asked to do this> I can only.do.so by reducing myself to tho narrowest and most selfish level; and I maintain that,.as merchants of the chief town of Nev^ Zealand, we cannot afford to act in such a spirit. • |

Mr Mackerkas : I understand that Mr Tewsley says it would cost L 25.000 extra to do what is proposed by this memorial and motion. I understand the proposal is that the present dock should bo utilised for all purposes. Does Mr Tswsley say that that would cost L 25,000 extra?

Mr Tewsley: That would not cost L 25,000 extra, but you do not see what your proposal means.' When we are approaching the completion of the channel, the next work will be to put a wharf along the line of the retaining wall. If.members of the Chamber were to take the trouble to read the last rtporfc of the Works Committee, they will see the course it is pro posed to take exactly indicated. When that is done we will go to the end of the 350 ft, now being_constructed by Mr Proiidfobt, and, commencing from that, work outwards on the other side to Jetty street. It must be remembered that wherever the goods station is, there must be the docks. " . : ,

: After Mr Fish had given a denial to Mr Tewsley's charge against him of "infelicity i»nd inaccuracy," :

Mi- H. M'NEEd said: As a member of the old Harbour Board, I wish to say something on the question as to whether the site of the docks was discussed by the old Board. During the whole time I waj there, I never heard a discussion on the question either in Committee or in the Harbour Board. I take'blame to myself as a member of the Board for having overlooked this important question, and:all the members of the old Board seem to have committed the same mistake. The only occasion on which I remember the matter being alluded to was when Mr E. B. Cargill made some remarks as to the want of wisdom and justice in/placing the docks down by Stuart street. I- remember that Mr Cargill was induced to withdraw the strenuous opposition he was then evidently disposed to offer by the reason given—by whom I cannot say—that the position of the docks was only an approximation; and that it was by no means fixed.

Mr Tewsley : I. will stand by the minutes of the Board meetings, and by the newspapeF reports. -I am sure Mr M'Neil is mistaken. ." i Mr Davie : As_a member of the old Board, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without confirming the statement just made by Mr M'Neil. I know of no occasion upon which the site of the docks was discussed during- the whole time I sat on the Board, except once, when the matter was first brought up by MrE. B. Cargill. He stated distinctly and deliberately that he disapproved entirely of the site of the docks, as indicated on the plan, and that he would oppose it. After considerable and angry discussion, Mr Cargill was induced to withdraw his opposition, on the understanding that the site was not fixed permanently, but was merely indicated. I think a certain degree of misapprehension or misconception, seems to have entered more or less into the discussion of. this question of the docks. The question is not vhether we shall remove them from the other' side of Stuart street,. and bring them up to this end of the town. The question is: Shall we preserve thedocks where they a<enow, and utilise them there, they being in the most central situation.and most convenient for the mercantile community in general,? My experienced with regard to the value of property in other cities in _tlie neighbourhood of docks and railway stations is quite the reverse of what has been stated by Mr Tewsley. I confess that I have a considerable amount of sympathy with those who think that it is somewhat late in the day for the .mercantile community to take up this question. But. this state of apathy and indifference which existed among our mercantile community can be traced to several causes. One is that we were all more or less disposed to think that the basin towards the south end would. for many a long day be sufficient to meet our requirements, believing that as trade extended, so would the accommodation north and south. Another cause is that the obstacles in the way of carrying out the improvement of the harbour have been so numerous that.they have given rise to the impression that the time when large vessels would be ar our doors was becoming day by day more distant, if it was hot altogether hopeless. That state of things would have continued if we were not now brought up with a round turn by the Government. The Government do not yet recognise that we have giren them a definite answer with reference to the docks, and hence this discussion has arisen. I do not think Mr Proudfoot's contract need, cause U3 any concern, because there is a clause in the resolution that the Board should not take any action to imperil that contract, or any other one. Besides, I do not think the proposal before the Chamber will in any material degree affect that contract. An important point has been brought forward by Mr Gillie 3, viz., that the action recommended by this memorial is iikely to affect the Harbour Board securities in the London market. Now, I think the course pre posed by the memorial will improve the securities. You will make an addition of 30 acres ,to the Board's endowment by carrying out the proposal contained in this memorial.

Mr GiLMES: I deprecate the Chamber of Commerce coming forward and trying to dictate or point out that this or that course ought to be taken. I think we should simply pas 3 a resolution to this effect: " That seeing the proposed site of the railway goods shed and the docks is not satisfactory to many of the mercantile community, this Chamber prays the Harbour Board to give the whole matter their most earnest attention."

Mr Burt : I shall propose a motion such as that suggested by Mr Gillies. Everyone who has lived here during the last 14 years knows that controversy has beea the cause why the large ships are not up in Dunedin at present. ] We know that with every change of Government a new scheme was brought forward. I do not think it is right for this Chamber to fix the Harbour Board to any particular plan. They have their Engineer to advise them, and I do not think he has b«en biassed by any section of the commuuits'. I think there can be no doubt that this question of the Doclib must have been discussed by the Harbour Board. As for the centre of the. city, Ido not see where you can get nearer to it than in .Stuart street. —(Laughter.) I would move— "That in the opinion of tnis Cnamber the position of the docks, and consequently of the irailivay goods shed, is not satisfactory to many of the mercantile community, and therefore this Chamber would ask the Harbour Board to give the whole matter their most earnest attention."

The amendment was seconded by Mr Tewsley. On being put to the vote, it was negatived. -

Mr John Cavgill's motion was then put and carried by nine votes against three. " .'.. '■'■ Mr M'Neii, moved—" That the Chamber, of Commerce desires very strongly to urge upon the Government that the site best suited for the railway goods station in Dunedin is that block of reclaimed land immediately in front of the Universal Bond, for the following reasons : 1. It is contiguous to that basin marked in the Harbour plan herewith for intercolonial and

interprovincial steamers. 2. Ths«t when the southern side of this basin is.extended out to; the point, indicated in said plan, it will give a berthage .accommodation of between 4000 and 5000 feet, or nearly 2000 feet more than the berthage of.the two piers at Port Chalmers. 3. That this bsrthage is amply sufficient for the shipping trade of the port at present, and-for many years to come. 4. That when the ship-

'ping trade of the;port increases so as to render the berthage within this basin, insufficient, .additional, accommodation can easily be obtained by using tho face line or walling,' now in course of construction, from the end of the Rattray, street Jetty in the direction ot the fir3o" dock, and continuing that facing as re.quired. 5. That by using the present steamer basin for berthing all our import and export sailing vessels and steamers, the convenience and economy of the whole commerce of the port would be conserved." ' ' ■'■

Seconded by Mr Low. Mr Tewsley: I.would point out, that to carry this resolution simply means the impesi ■tion of increased dues. If the Board is deprived of the revenue they expected to derive from this land, they will have to impose heavy jetty and improvement dues in order to pay the interest on borrowed money. ; Mr Davie:,No doubt the-mercantile community will be_ prepared to pay extra dues if necessary, but in themeantime give us the conveniences we want. .

The resolution was carried.

: On the motion of Mr WH.SON; ft was resolved that copies of the resolutions should be forwarded to the Harbour Board and the Hon. G. M'Lean.

The proceedings then terminated,