HARBOUR BOARDS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3756, 9 March 1926, Page 32

HARBOUR BOARDS.

TENTH CONFERENCE. CONSIDERATION OF REMITS. The tenth conference of the Harbour Boards’ Association was opened in the Early Settlers’ Hall on Thursday, Mr J. Loudon (chairman of the Otago Harbour Board) presiding in the absence of Mr Maurice Cohan (president of the association and chairman of the Wellington Harbour Board), who was prevented from attending owing to illness. The following delegates were present:— Auckland —Messrs H. R. Mackenz e, C. G. Macindoe, John Henderson, and 11. B. Burnett; Bluff—Messrs C. S. Longuet, A. H. Aitken, A. Bain, and Robert A. Adams; Foxton—Messrs J. Linklater, M.P., and E. R. B. llolben; Gisborne—Messrs 1. Mirfield, J. Tombeson, and 11. A. Barton; Gre*.mouth—Messrs Jesse Steer and John Ryall; Hokitika—Mr G. A. Wood Lyttelton —Messrs \V. J. Walter, R. Galbraith, F. Horrell, and Cyrus J. R. Williams; Motueka—Messrs P. G. Moffat, C. Ellison. J. Vigor Brown, and J. P. Kenny; Nelson— Mr B. Drummond; New Plymouth—Messrs C. E. Bellringer, M.P., E. Maxwell, and S. Reynolds; Oamaru—Messrs E. Lane and C. A. La Roche; Opunake—Mr T. P. Hughson; Otago—Messrs J. Loudon, W. Gow, A. Cable, and H. E. Moller Patea— Mr A. T. Christensen; Tauranga—Messrs D. Grant and J. G. Green; Thames— Messrs R. Coulter and V. E. Sanders; Timaru—Messrs Walter Haymaa and E. R. Isaac; Tokomaru—Messrs A. W. Kirk and Captain S. J. Plummer; Waircr. -Ivlr P. 3!. Summerfield; Wanganui—Messrs A. G. Bignoll, P. Higginbottom, and W. J. Gardner; Wellington—Messrs H. D. Bennett. Colonel G. Mitchell, Captain C. M'Arthur and I>. J. M'Gowan; Wliangarei—Mr J. M‘Kinnon. Mr Loudon said that he regretted the circumstances which necessitated his assuming the chairmanship of the conference, and moved that the conference record its sympathy with Mr Cohen m his illness and express the hepe that he would bo speedily restored to health. The motion was carried as was also a vote of sympathy extended to the relatives of the late Mr D. W. Jack (chairman of the VVhangarei Harbour Board) the members standing for a morn-wit in silence. Mr Loudon then introduced tlve Mayor, Mr H. L. Taplev. M.P.. and Mr J. Sutherland Ross (chairman of directors of the Exhibition Company). DELEGATES WELCOMED. Mr Tapley expressed pleasure in extending a welcome to the delegates. lie looked on the present conference as one of the most important, if not the most important that had been held in Dunedin during the past few months. He considered th».t the Harbour Boards were second in importance only to the principalities, and it was necessary that harmony should exist between such local bodies. New Zealand was prob:ddv faced with greater problems than any country in the world in regard to her harbours, and ho maintained that the country districts should contribute to the funds of the Harbour Boards. He was delighted to think that Mr Loudon (under whom he had had the privilege of serving his apprenticeship to public life) had been cone the honour of presiding at their contfcrep.ee. Ho hoped that their deliberations wouid bo of value to the Dominion, and teat they would carry away pleasant recollections of their visit. Vlr Ross congratulated Mr Loudon on having been elected as president, and said *f.ut he wished to express appreciation of ti.o courtesy which led Mr M'Kenzie (chairman of the Auckland Board) who was also 0-wiior member of the association, to stand down in favour of a Dunedin man. As ctiaitman of the Exhibition directors he was representing a temporary body, but ho hoped that when the Exhibition closed down they would have left behind them a permanent record of the progress of New Zealand during the past 80 years. Mr Ross Paid a high tribute to the aid given to the establishment of the Exhibition bv the British Government, whose early and continued interest in the project,'he said, had stimulated the interest of other countries which otherwise might not have been participators They were also indebted to the Harbour Board, which was their landlord, and although he had not seen a great deal of public Me, he was very much struck bvlhe standard of the men who served the pubi.c on various bodies. In conclusion no vouid say •.hat the efforts put forward £ r .r i Hj»f’- c H«-v.,in connection with the Exhibition, in ixhibiUng models of the various uoivr, s-.-rb as reclamation work, and hvdrooicetn.c p an I s were of great interest find educational vain® to the public. Ho extended on .lenatT of his directors a very wvm welcome to those present. : ,r motion of Mr Loudon a hearty voti, Oi thanks was accorded the speakers. An apology for abwMjec was received from Marine)" A.i.lorso-- (Minister of EXECUTIVE’S REPORT. The report of the executive for the period *iotu August, 1924, to date, which was presented, stated, inter alia, that: The present members of the executive comthe respective chairmen of the following boards:—Wellington. Mr Maurice Lohen; Auckland, Mr H. R. Mackenzie; Lyttelton, Mr W. J. Walter; Otago Mr J Loudon; Napier, Mr C. Ellison; New 1 lymouth, Mr C. E. Bellringer; Timaru, Mr Walter Hay man; Wanganui. Mr A. G. ILgnel!; and Captain ,\f Arthur (member of tne Wellington Harbour Board). i ho association hod in the past been recognised by the Government as the mouthpiece of the various harbour boards m New Zealand in connection with matters requiring general legislation, and the executive, in acknowledging this fact, desired to express >t s appreciation of the spirit of cooperation which at the present time existed between the association and the Minister of Mai'.ne and his executive officers. At tile end of last year the l>alance of assets over liabilities amounted to £196 3s, of which the association had £lls 15s on depo„it-earning interest. The report was adopted. REMITS. Auckland.—“ That sections 236 and 239 of the Harbours Act be amended to provido for the master or owner of the ship being responsible for the action of any member •f the crew.” Mr G. Henderson. Auckland, spoke to the •emit, which was adopted. “That section 226 (7) of the Harbours

un of garbage chutes on vessels as well as of ash ejectors.”—Adopted.

Mr H. R. Mackenzie (Auckland) moved the addition of the words: "That the Marino Department be asked to revise and consolidate the General Harbour Regula tions, and that it be a suggestion to the Minister of Marine that the harbour masters at Auckland, Wellington. Lyttelton, and Dunedin, and the officials connected with them, be associated with the department’s officers when making such revisions,” to the following remits:

"That the words ‘must sound steam whistle frequently he deleted in clause 32, page 13, of the General Harbour Regulations.” ‘‘That the words ‘licensed ferry' in the second line, and ‘ferry’ in the fourth line of clause 34. page 13, of (he General Harbour Regulations be deleted.” "That clause 35, page 13, of the General Harbour Regulations be deleted.” "That the words ‘or owner’ be added to (lie word ‘Master’ in clause 36, page 13, of the General Harbour Regulations.” "That clause 1 be deleted on page 25, General Harbour Regulation, No. L” Mr Mackenzie’s motion was carried, and the remits were adopted. "That section 166 (f) of the Harbours Act be amended to provide that the term of a lease or license of any wharf or building may be for a peroid of 21 years (present term seven years).—Mr MTiuloe, who submitted the remit, said that they considered that the present period of tenure of a license or lease was quite inadequate.— Mr Godfrey suggested that 14 years would be a suitable term.—Mr MTndoe agreed to the remit being altered to read 14 years, and the motion in its amended form was carried. “That. section ICO (i) of the Harbours Act be amended to include mineral oil and petroleum products.”—Adopted. "That section 166 (j) of the Harbours Act be amended to provide that a board may, by agreement with the local authority, lay rails on any road or approach to any wharf in order to connect with any tramway or railway on its wharves or land." Mr Burnett, who spoke to the remit, pointed out that the section as it stood provided only for the laying of rails on a wharf, or a quay, and that the laying of rails on any road approach to a wharf, etc., coull only be done under the provisions of the Tramways Act—The remit was passed. Mr H. B. Burnett presented the following remit: — That section 79 (2) of the Harbours Act be amended to provide that vessels laid up or out of commission are free of port charges, but not of berthage, dock dues, etc. Mr T. S. Weston (Wellington) suggested that the terms of this remit, if carried into effect, might create a bad precedent, and that the existing regulations would be better left as they were. Mr C. G. MTndoe (Auckland) supported the remit, on the grounds that it seemed an injustice to charge port dues on a boat which was not plying. Mr W. Gow (Otago) said that he thought that the remit should be altered to read: “Provided the vessel may be freed.” This would give the Harbour Board concerned power to act. He moved this alteration as an amendment. Mr T. C. Weston (Wellington) pointed out that the proposed amendment would then apply more closely to section 2-26, and suggested that the remit be altered in this respect.—lt was agreed to make the alterations, and the remit was carried in its amended form.

Mr M'Kcnzie submitted the following remit: —“That provision be made in section 226 of the Harbours Act empowering harbour boards to make charges for the haulage or carriage of goods by rail,” which was carried.

Napier Harbour Board forwarded the following remit: — “That section 61 of ‘The Harbours Act, 1923,’ be amended so as to make it clear that the charges imposed on vessels may be computed on the net or gross register tonnage at the option of the harbour board, and it is suggested that the following words be added to clause 61 (1): ‘And it shall be at the option of the harbour board to levy under by-law all dues on ships upon the net or gross register tonnage/ making the section read thus: ‘Where any ship is registered at a port in the United Kingdom or any British possession, the amount of tonnage specified in the certificate of such registry shall, for the purposes of this Apt, be deemed to be the tonnage of such ship, and it shall be at the option of the harbour board to levy under by-law all dues on ships upon the net or gross register tonnage/ ” Mr C. Ellison (Napier) said that in the last year there were no less than ten steamers which had had their tonnage materially reduced, in some cases by as much as 2000 tons, and that this state of affairs was altogether unfair to the boards.

Mr MTndoe (Auckland) opposed the remit on the grounds that it would be r.n injustice to passenger ships, which had a small cargo capacity, besides which it would upset the existing regulations throughout the Dominion. Mr G. (J. Godfrey (secretary for marine) said lie knew of a vessel whose gross tonnage was 398 and her net tonnage .8. A ship could pet up to 37i per cent, exemption for her engine space, and although he admitted that the present system was full of anotnniios, he considered it quite unfair to the harbour boards, and it should bo worked on the basis of service rendered. —Mr C. Williams (Wellington) said that he thought it was for the British Government and tho Board of Trade to take action.

Colonel Mitchell (Wellington) said that such a remit meant that a ship should pay in proportion to services rendered to her, and it seomed to him to be eminently just. Mr T. S. Weston (solicitor to the association) suggested that a proposal be put before tho Prime Minister, and that he bring the matter before the British Government with a view to establishing a uniform system of measurement.

Mr J. P. Kennv (Napier) said that ho knew of cases where boats which had visited Napier lately had a net tonnage of 2000 less than when they had visited the port in the previous year. Captain M‘Arthur (WeJlington) said that ii nicanurement were taken by gross tonnage it might be open to a good deni of question-ho would suggest leaving matters as they were.

Mr H. D. Bennett (Wellington) said that the issue was so important that it appeared doubtful to him whether they were qualified

Mr Loudon lOtago) suggested that a motion to the effect that the Prii Minister should be approached to ascertain at the next Imperial Conference if 6ome uniform system of measurement could not be adopted which might meet the case. Mr M‘Konzie thereupon moved the following amendment:—‘‘That the conference suggest to Government that it approach the British Government to bring before the next Imperial Conference the question of having adopted through the Board of Trade a uniform system for the measurement of ships for payment of dues, to take effect throughout the Empire.” Mr Weston said that tho only duty of a harbour board was to collect sufficient dues to pay the expenses of the port. At present there was a limit to the amount a board could charge Der ton, and he considered that the remit would have the effect of reducing this minimum. Mr M‘Kenzie said that at present different ports adopted different systems, with the result that shippers frequently did not know where they stood. This, he maintained, tended to kill trade to the ports. The remit was lost. Mr M'Kentze s amendment being carried. "That section 78 (e) of ‘The Harbours Act, 1923/ be repealed. The section referred to is as follows:—‘Any vessel employed in fishing, sealing, or oyster-dredg-ing, and not conveying goods for hire/ ” Adopted. "That after the word 'collected' in the second line of section 87 of the Harbours Act the following words be added: —‘Or in 12 equal monthly instalments of the total levy or claim made under clause 85 (1) of the Act, the first instalment to be paid over to the board within thirty (30) days of the date of the claim above referred to/ ”•—Withdrawn. “That the fifth schedule to ‘The Harbours Act, 1923,* be amended by increasing the limits to which harbourmaster’s fees/ port charges, and pilotage may be raised.”—Rejected. The following Napier remits were also adopted:—“That all the words after ‘retain’ in the fourth line of section 87 of the Harbours Act be deleted and the following words substituted therefor: —‘A sum not exceeding 2£ per centum only from each monthly instalment of the levy or claim made under clause 85 (1).’” “That section 22 (1) of ‘The Customs Act, 1913/ be amended by striking out the first three words in the third line, the words referred to being ‘the reception of.’ ” WELLINGTON. “That the proviso to sub-section 1 (a) of section 78 of ‘The Harbours Act, 1923/ providing for statutory declarations where exemptions are claimed from harbour dues under this sub-section, be made to apply generally to the exemption provisions of this section.” Mr H. D. Bennett, who introduced the remit, pointed out that at the present time the provision in this sub-section of the Harbours Act for statutory declarations to be made by persons claiming exemption, applied only to naval stores and ships. In practice declarations were seldom required or asked for in connection with naval stores and ships, but there was a good reason for having this declaration made in the case of Government goods and persons travelling on Government service, etc. It appeared to be an oversight that this clause was not made general in applic.AUn in the first place. The remit was adopted. “That in sub-section 3 of section 78 of the Harbours Act the following words be deleted: ‘lu connection with the docking or slipping of a vessel.’Adopted. “That the time has arrived wh3n the genera! harbour regulations and the various Government regulations referring to petrol eum, explosives, etc. on wharves, should be modernised and consolidated, and that the Minister of Marino be urged to have this work put in hand.”—Adopted. That section 291 (wrecks, obstructions, etc.) and section 236 (depositing rubbish, etc.) of the Harbours Act be amended by adding a further condition to sub-seetion s (1) of the above sections providing also for non-interfereneec with any present or proposed harbour works.” Colonel Mitchell spoke to thi 8 remit and said that it was necessary that harbour boards should have power to compel the responsible parties to remove wrecks -or impediments in a harbour. The remit was adopted. The following Wanganui remit: “That in the opinion of this conference the Gov eminent should undertake the duty of inspection and survey of ballast boats, tank boats, cargo boats,; store ships, and hulks used within the limits of anv harbour, and all barges used in roadstead ports for the purpose of conveying cargo to and from vessels lying in the roadstead.” was carried. Otago submitted the following remit: "That there be added to section 189 of The Harbours Act, 1923, the following subsection:—(3) ‘That, the owner of a snip in connection with which towage service shall be rendered by a board shall be liable to pay to the board the charges for such towage which charges shall also constitute a lien on the ship and the board shall not be concerned to inquire into the authority of the applicant for such service,” which was carried without discussion. FURTHER REMITS. The conference was resumed on Friday morning, the principal business being the discussion of the various remits. On the n otion of the Chairman (Mr tL Loudon) the Tauranga remit—" That this association considers that all Government departments should be required to pay a proportion of harbour dues on goods passed over tho wharves of harbour hoards, and especially goods passing over wharves which havo not been subsidised to any material extent by Government funds, and that the Harbours Act be amended accordingly”— which had been withdrawn on the previous day was reinstated and adopted. The Tauranga remit—" That this conference is of the opinion that tho financial year of harbour board® should end of March 31, seeing that the election of member.; takes place in April, mid that the Minister of Marine be asked to amend the Act accordingly”—was withdrawn. Woffington submitted the followin'' remit, which was presented by Colonel Mitchell (Wellington): “That as. in the opinion of this conference, the returned contributions to the widow of a deceased contributor or annuitant under the superannuation fund become ipso facto the property of the widow and cease to be part of the deceased’s estate, tho Government be i ' ed to have it mode clo»r that «uch repayment. »re not to be

included in the stamp accounts of the deceased s estate.”—Captain M‘Arthur (Wei lington) seconded the motion.

Colonel Mitchell pointed out thut the Wellington Harbour Board had always con sideretl that, under its superannuation fund, any repayments due to the widow of a deceased contributor or annuitant became the property of the widow and ceased to be part of the deceased’s estate, but the Public Trustee stated that the Commissioner of Stamp Duties had always compelled him to include annuities and suchlike benefits payable to a widow in stamp account®. The amount dutiable was worked out on the basis of the widow’s expectancy of life. To illustrate the matter further lie quoted an extract from a letter of the commissioner received in connection with an estate in which the circumstances were similar:—

"If they have elected to accept these allowances in lieu of the lump sum the widow’s life interest and the interests of both children until they reach tho age of 14 years will be added to the final balance of the estate. These interests amount to the sum of £—, which will bring the final balance to a dutiable amount.” The Public Trustee explained that the amounts payable to the widow in the case quoted were certain benefits under the Superannuation and National Provident Acts which, he presumed, would place them in the same class for duty purposes as annuities payable under the “Local Authorities Superannuation Act, 1908.”

The remit was adopted. The following Wellington remit was also agreed to:—“That the Government be urged to amend the Pensions Act so that the pension of a widow under a superannation fund established bv a harbour board or local authority shall not reduce or nullify her claim for a State pension.” “That, as there was inserted in the Local Authorities Superannuation Act by the Legislature a clause limiting a retiring allowance to £3OO per annum but with no limitation in the percentage rate of a contributor’s salary, the Government be urged to make such alterations to the Act as will remove the serious injustice that at present is being done to certain contributor to this fund,” was another Wellington remit. moved by Colonel Mitchell and seconded by Mr C. J. It. Williams (Lyttelton). In speaking to the remit, the mover pointed out that it was evident that, by limiting to £3OO the total amount of the retiring allowance of a contributor to the fund without placing any limit upon the member’s percentage of salary contributions, a serious injustice had been done -o the higher-salaried contributors. Though their contributions increase correspondingly with salaries, the total retiring allowance that could be received remained at £3OO. The anomaly had been met in "The National Provident Fund Act” by a provision fixing a limit of salary on which contributions can be assessed.

The remit was adopted. “That provision be made in the Harbours Act so that, at the option of the Guard, payment to members attending meetings may be made, either actual out-of-pocket expenses for hotel and transport or out-of-pocket hotel expenses and a mileage rate for transport to be not less than s psi mile—mileage one way only,” was a Foxton remit brought forward by Mr J. Linklater (Foxton), who pointed out that members of boards in out of the way districts were frequently put to grgat expense in attending board meetings.—The remit was adopted.

The further Foxton remit—“ That provision he made in the Harbours Act. so that members attending be paid one guinea per meeting (statutory or special) in addition to actual out-of-pocket expenses” was submitted by Mr E. R. B. Holben. The motion was seconded by Mr Linklater, but was opposed by Messrs 11. R. Mackenzie (Auckland), Vigor Brown (Napier), and C. Ellison (Napier), who maintained that it was an honour to belong to a harbour board, and that any member should be prepared to give his services gratuitously, whereupon the remit was withdrawn. The following remit from the Otago board was moved by Mr A. Cable: ‘That the following provision be enacted in addition to the offences created bv Section 236 “Harbours Act. 1923”: “(1) Every person comits an offence who without the written consent of tho Harbour Board of the district or where there is no harbour board of the Minister does or causes or suffers to be done any of the following things, that is to say: "(a) Drainage into Harbours.—Either directly or indirectly discharges any sewage or polluted waters into any harbour or on to the foreshore of any harbour or upon anv land in such a position that the same is or is liable to be carried or washed down bv any open or closed channel or conduit or by any stream or flow of watei or by ordinary rainfall storm or flood or bv anv other cause or means whether of the same nature or not into any harbour or on to the foreshore of anv harbour.

“(b) Depositing Refused—Casts or places or suffers to fall any substance or thing which is or is liable to be offensive to the public or injurious to public health upon the foreshore of any harbour or into anv harbour or any part of the sea so tnat the same is or is liable to be deposited upon such foreshore or upon any land in such a position that the same is or is liable to be carried or washed dawn bv any cause or means including any of those mentioned in the last preceding paragraph on to such foreshore. “2. For each offence the offender shall be liable to pay a fine not exceeding £SO and in addition thereto any expenses incurred by the board by reason or in consequence of any such offence.

"3. Such fine shall be recoverable only on the prosecution of the board having jurisdiction at the place where the offence is committed or on the prosecution directed by the Minister, and if there is no board at such place thou only a prosecution directed by the Minister, provided that it shall not be necessary to prove that any such direction has been given. Mr Cable explained that this remit provided for extending the powers of the boards in regard to the control of drainage into harbours and the depositing of offensive matter. The second portion of the remit wau occasioned by an instance which occurred in Dunedin, where some cases of rabbits had to be destroyed. They had no destructor in Dunedin and in order to get rid of them the owners put them on board a Rhip and took them outside the Heads, where they rvere dumped overlmard, with the result that a large number of them piled up on the foreshore in the vicinity of a township. It was contended that they were within their rights, as they had been dumped over-

board beyond the three-mile limit. The object of the remit was to prevent a similar happening, and they considered that legislation in this direction was highly necessary.

The motion was seconded by Mr Horrell (Lyttelton), and was carried. "That the proviso to sub-section 3 of section 141 of The Uai hours Act, 1923/ be repealed, and that the A t be otherwise amended to make it clear that boards are to be entitled to full compensation for lands taken or injuriously affected pursuant to section 140 or section 141/’ was another Otafgo remit, which was spoken to by Mi J. Loudon, who said that the present Act still refused full compensation for land taken. The agitation for this should be continued. At the third conference (1907) of the association a remit had been submitted on this matter, and it had been reaffirmed on several subsequent occasions. As it was a most important matter, it was urged that the executive should take this matter up particularly with the Government.—The remit was adopted. The following Otago remits were also discussed and adopt: d: — “That section 151 of ‘The Harbours Act, 1923/ be amended by providing that the consent of the hoard be a condition precedent to any reclamation under this section.” “That section 184 of ‘The Harbours Act. >923/ be amended by providing that lands of a harbour board adjacent to a wharf and used iu connection therewith be included in the definition of a wharf.” The following Napier remits were adopted:— “That section 45 (6) of ‘The Harbours Act, 1923/ be amended by adding the following words after the word ‘secretary’: ‘or any person acting for and on behalf of the secretary/ making the section then read thus: ‘Every notice of a special meeting shall be in writing under the hand of the secretary or any person acting for and on behalf of the secretary, and shall be sent to each member four clear days at least before such meeting.’ ” “That section 7 of The Local Bodies Finance Act, 1921/ be amended by adding after the word ‘flood’ in sub-clause (1) the words ‘damage by sea/ ” “That a sub-clause No. la be added to section 7 of ‘The Bodies Finance Act, 1921/ reading: ‘Where by reason of strikes, lock-outs, or other exceptional causes connected with shipping the revenue of I'arbour boards is adversely affected, then it shall b£ lawful for sucii harbour board, with the consent of the Minister of Internal Affairs, to borrow moneys from its bankers or any other person or persons to make good such estimated deficiency in the revenue.’ ” The Napier remit —“That section 113 (a) of The Harbours Act, 1923/ be repealed and t\e following substituted therefor:—‘That a sinking fund be established upon each loan raised and that the Public Trustee should name an annual payment into such iund so that on a 5 per cent, basis at least one-fourth of the principal sum would be liquidated when the loan matures’ ” —was withdrawn. The Thames Board tabled the following remit:—“That section 90 of ‘The Harbours Act, 1923/ be so amended as to provide that where attendance at a board or committee meeting necessitates a member being absent from home overnight, travelling expenses 6hall be paid on the basis of a fixed sum per day or part of a day plus a travelling allowance of one shilling per mile one way, and in all other cases on the basis of actual travelling expenses only.” Mr V. E. Saunders, who submitte 1 the remit, pointed out that it must be the experience of many harbour boards that some members representing distant districts were compelled to use their own cars to attend meetings or to take them to the nearest railway point connecting with the place of meeting. Section 90 ot "The Harbours Act, 1923,” provided that a member might be paid the amount of travelling expense actually incurred, but the Audit Department (at least in the case of his board) ruled against the payi ment of expenses incurred by a member using his own car, although if a car plying for public hire were engaged the cost would he allowed. To hire a car where the member’s home was located a long distance from a motor service station would in many cases involve an expenditure out of all proportion to the cost if the member use/ his own car. The remit was agreed to. On behalf of the Thames Board, Mr (J. E. V. Saunders moved—“ That ‘The Finance Act, 1920/ and The Trustee Act, 1908/ be so amended as to authorise the investment of trust moneys in the loans of all harbour boards.”—Rejected. Mr Saunders further moved—" That ‘The Finance Act, 1920/ and ‘The Trustee Act, 1908/ he so amended as tc authorise the investment of trust moneys in the loans of all harbour boards having rating areas,” which was carried.

The visiting delegates and the ladies accompanying them were entertained on Friday on a harbour trip to the Heads, bv the members of the Otago Harboui Board. Tho party left tho wharf at 130 punctually, and went bv tho main channel to the Spit, returning, about 5.45, via Portobello. The visitors expressed themselves as delighted with the outing, and on rheir return, many eulogistic comments were passed on the beauties of the harbour Aftornon tea was served on the ferry, and ideal weather lent additional charm to the trip and materially assisted in making the outing an unqualified success.