DOCK TRUST MERGER BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14382, 27 November 1908, Page 5

DOCK TRUST MERGER BILL.

MR E. G. ALLEN'S POSITION. A CRITICISM AND A REPLY. The question of Mr !''• 0. Allen's attitude in respect of the Dock Trust Merger Bill when before Parliament again came up for discussion at the meeting of tile Ofcago Harbour 13oard yesterday, Mi K. G. Alien himself-being pic-sent, and at some length stating hi 6 position in the matter. _ Tho motion that was before the meeting in the, first instance was put forward by Mr Duthie, and was as follows That the attention of the board he called to the following paragraph, which appeared in the Evening Star of .October 23, purporting to be tho remarks of Mr E. 0. Allen, M.P.' During the progress of the bill through its committee stages a. number of Dunedin gentlemen; including Cr Tait, of Port Chalmers, attended at Wellington and did good pusincss. Clause 16 of the bill had been altered so that half of the amount which the corporation was called upon to pay to the Harbour Board would be refunded. -After the< deputation left Wellington something better was accomplished. While the kill was in committeo stages in the Upper House he got a permissive addition put to clause 16 that the Harbour Board may refund the other half to the Port Chalmers Borough Council when tho dock proved payable' As such statements hidicate a departure from the understanding arrived at by tho delegates when in Wellington, and a breach of the conditions under which the consent of tho Harbour Board's delegates was obtained to the refunding of tlie half of tho contribution guaranteed by (ho Port Chalmers Borough- Council, and that- ns the biil has now passed with additions' not agreed to by the delegates, all consideration of tho bill be postponed until a, final settlement ban been arrived at between the Dock Trust and tho contractor." , . Mr W. Gow, who had moved at 'a 6tago in the discussion at tho last meeting 'of tlie bpard that further discussion should be adjourned until the next meeting, opened On the subject yesterday. He reiterated that he considered lie wag justified in saying that every word Mr Duthie Juki uttered with regard to the arrangements mado in Wellington was absolutely accurate, andthey could look upon nothing that wjs (lone except as ,a gross breach 6t confidence. The statements that had been mad-ei wei'e perfectly accurate, but ho disagreed 1 with the motion inasmuch as it joined two subjects which should not be joined. - Ho was not pi spared to discuss at thai: stags what, their policy in' regard 'to amalgamation with the Dock Trust should be, But it would be an unfortunate thing if anything that was done now in regard to the passing of this Merger Bill should later be considered as injudicious. He was quite prepared to leave the question open as to the Merger Bill, but he whs not prepared to have it tacked on to u matter of censure of Mr Allen. He wished to refer .to the ; reply made by Mr Allen, in his •Ravens-.' bourne speech just after tho last meeting of the board. H« maintained that 1 Itherc wasj fiomo misunderstanding His statements there did not ! correspond with the facts as they understood them. He did not dispute the accuracy of his statements, but ho desired to find out who'was tho solicitor to whom Mr Allen referred. Ho had made inquiries, and found that the statements did not refer to their own solicitor. Hi's arrangements with the representatives of tho Port Chalmers-, Borough Council 1 and tho Dock Trust were, it was'intimated to.them, to be adhered to, and on. that understanding they left Wellington. What transpired subsequently rtas, from their point of view, a breach' ■of faith. Mr Allen might understand it from a, different point of view, :but that was their understanding. He hoped the resolution as it then, ,stood would bo rejected, as it joined with a censure of his attitude a declaration that should bo embodied in a separate resolution. . Mrßess maintained that they were beating tho air. No good could result, from it, but ho would like to see the motion divided into two portions. Ho' was in favour of the latter part of tho motion,

Mr Bullock said he would - consider the inotioii as it stood. He considered that the board should express its opinion as .to whether the bill as it was passed was, or was not, in.' accordance,with the .wishes of the board, Clause 16 was first of all thrown •out by tho board, and was subsequently brought 'lip again and passed on the casting voto of the chairman. He would more an amendment as follows :-'"Ehat the board considers that as the bill wac reported to the House of Representatives it contained a reasonable basis of amalgamation,' and although it recognises that the exercise of the additional power i 6 optional it deems it expedient to place on record that if the merger, is effeoted the board jvill adhere to the terms of the bill as agreed on, but will not exercise the additional power.' If this amendment'were ca-rriod.it would, to his mind, meot the ease, '' The Chairman considered that such a motion as proposed by Mr Bullock should be embodied in tho transactions of the board. He still maintained that they had no sympathy with tho alteration that- was made. Mr Allen said what he/was anxious to do was to explain one point that was included in the motion that was brought u'd by Mr Duthie at. tho last meoting. The point ho referred to clearly taxed him with a breach of faith. Anyone with any self-respect would object to that charge, and ho objected to Delegates' were sent to Wellington ostensibly to assist- him in getting the bill passed. The delegates hold a meeting, at which he objected, to some of tho proposals. A further meetijig of delegates lyas then, held, but to which lie was not invited,, and at'that meeting section 16 of the bill was struck out. He had in the -meantime presented a largely-signed petition to Parliament' protesting against the contributing of largo sums of money to the Harbour Board for tho purpose of oarrying on the , functions "of the Dock T.ruet. That petition was read before the Local Bills Committee. The bill was passed through and no oxception was takep to it. There was 110 discussion on the second reading, In committee lie had moved the permissive amendment that had caused so much trouble. J\o objection was raised to this permissive clause. It was simply a permissive clause. He- did not know why it had been seen fit to bring this motion of censure before t-ho public just at a time when it would do him -harm. If that was the intention, the effort had sue-, ceeded, because at the general election it had dona him harm. Mr Duthio denied that it was brought forward with the intention of doing Air Allen harm. Why, continued Mr Allen! should he go out of his way and mako himself responsible or a breach of faith. Ho still hurled that tack in the faces of those who charged him with being guilty of it. The whole question had received his attention and interest as a public man. His work had been gratuitous, and ho felt the verv much. o.j Mr Gow said tliat Mr Allen liatl said that- tho delegates held a second meeting at Wellington and that ho was not present. It was at a caucus that the agreement arrived at was come to, and at which Mr l'a it represented the Port Chalmers Borough Council a-nd Mr Cable the Dock Trust Did not Mr Tait, ho asked Mr Allen, interview him on the subjcct on Thursday afternoon and make known the position to him ? Mr Allen: I do not remember Mr Tait coming to me and explaining the matter, but if lie did come it would have made no difference. I was not going to oppose anything that I had considered before. Mr Belcher said thero was botore them a motion of censure against Mr Allen that he did certain things in Wellington which he is supposed- not to have done. It appeared to him that everything had been perfectly consistent in this matter right from beginning to end. -Mr Allen said on every occasion that ho was going to conserve the interests of the Port Chalmers Borough Council to bis best ability, and if that permissive clause had been placed in the bill Mr Allen had only been consistent. Ho ccrtainly considered that the motion should be opposed. lie did not know they were thero to judge Mr Allen in his public capacity as a member of Parliament, lie gave him credit for doing what ho (Mr Belcher) considered his constituents wanted him to do. It had also been stated in the press, but had not been mentioned at a- meeting of the board, that the Hon. Mr Sinclair practically bore out the statement made by Mr Allen. He said distinctly that there was no alteration made in tile bill from the time it reached him until the timo it was passed. Voiccs: That-is so. The alteration was made in the Lower House. Continuing, Mr Belcher said, with regard to the second portion of tho rcsolu; tion, there was a lamentable lack of consistency about it. ,It appeared to him to be the case that the taking over of tile affairs of the clock was to be held out until everything was set up as between the contractors and the Dock Trust. The sooner the dock was taken over by a body that could manage it tiro better it would be for everyone concerned. It was going to waste at present. .

Mr Watson said lie considered that personal animus was at tho bottom of the motion. The Chairman: I ask you to withdraw that. Mr Watson: Well, I withdraw it. Tho Port, Chalmers Council as at present constituted does not in this matter represent the opinions of the ratepayers, • Tho Chairman:, We havo nothing to do with that. Mr Duthio then explained his position in regard to the motion. lie sai<l" he desired to .assure the members of the board, and Mr Allen in particular, that he had no intention of casting a vote of censure. All that lie di<l was ito draw the attention of the board to certain statements which <1 id not in any way coincide with tho aims of the delegates in Wellington. He had an absolute assurance that Mr Allen did move, and he considered that_ under these circumstances lie was justified in drawing the board's attention to what had takcy place. The gist of his motion was in the latter clause. He strongly objected to the permissive clause, and to any public body having any permissive clause whatever in a bill. Let them have it on definite lines. , It would be admitted on all sides that the whole position of tho Dock Trust was in anything but a creditable state. They knew nothing about its actual position, Tho amendment, which was seconded by Mr Gow, was then put to the meeting, and carried by 6even votes to live, the motion being declared lost.