THE OTAGO DOCK.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15183, 30 June 1911, Page 2

THE OTAGO DOCK.

LIABILITY OP PORT CHALMERS. THE CORPORATION RELEASED. At yesterday's meeting l of the Otago Harbour Board Mr MoUor moved tho motion standing in his name, as follows:— "That the corporation of the Borough of Port Chalmers be released from it liability under the Deed of Covenant, dated July 17, 1905, made between the corporation and tho Otago Dock Trust." Mr Mollev said ho did not think it was necessary for him to go into the matter at length. The Otago Harbour Board had authority to. build a dock, but, unlike Lyttelton and Auckland, which towns had -thought it ncoessary to construct docks, Otago stood dear of tho idea. The neglect of the board to build a dock had brought the Dock Trust into existence; but tlie trust was confronted with the difficulty that it did not have sufficient security to offer to enable it to sccurc the money. It was at this stage that the Port Chalmers Borough Council stopped in and found £1000, along with tho Union Steam Ship Company, and tho board itself. This enabled the loan to bo floated for the building of the dock. If tho guarantee had not been given there would have been no Otago dock to-day, and ho, was suro all the present members were agreeable that for the proper equipment of the port a suitable dock was necessary, and further, it enabled Otago to secure the ' work of repairing and refitting the Union Company's boats, and perhaps retain tho headquarters of the company in Dunedin. When tho merger of the trust and the board was completed Port Chalmers had to pay £500 a year, but the proviso* was added that tho board could release it if it thought fit. Further, as tho Tort Chalmers Corporation was a _ body within a body, he did not think it should bo called upon to pay this £500. His motion was but a formal confirmation of tho action of tho board at its last special meeting, when, on Mr' Platts's motion, it was unanimously resolved to delete from the estimates of revenue for this year the sum of £500 payable by the Corporation of Tort Chalmers. Mr Dickson seconded the motion. He oonsidercd it was unjust that tho people of Port Chalmers should be called upon to pay this pmount. Mr Loudon supported the motion, notwithstanding that Port Chalmers had entered into a compact to pay £1000, and had already had a rebate of £500. He supported the motion because it seemed to him anomalous that any small section ot the board's area should navoto pay a rate of this nature. Further, it was rather paltry finance to get n body like Port Chalmers to pay for • what was really a necessary adjunct to the harbour of Otago. Mr Moller had said that if it had not been for Port Chalmers taking tho initiative and incurring a great responsibility for a small borough they might not have had the /dock. Ho did not know whether that was so or not. At anyrate, they had the dock now. Of course, the oarryihg of the motion would mean that the board would have to make provision for another £500 of rovenue. Tho Chairman (Mr_ Belcher) said .he would like to see it_ stipulated in tho resolution that the remission was to be given .for a year, and then when the payment fell duo again it could again bo remitted. Mr Platts: The act provides for that. The Chairman: Then it is understood that this remission is only for a year, and that tho motion does not revoke the obligation for ever and ever. Mr Platts said that was the position. Tho Chairman: As lonjf as that is understood I will put the motion as it stands. Tho motion was carried unanimously.