THE HARBOR.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16371, 20 June 1927, Page 12

THE HARBOR.

(To tho Editor of the Herald.) Sir,—ln Saturday’s paper you had a long letter from Mr. Howard Kenway to* which ( should like to reply. This is necessary because a great part of his letter is an attack on mvseif. Mr. Kenway says that Messrs. Smith ami Todd seemed to be utterly obsessed with 1 lie idea that wc should have an outer harbor for tin: convenience of ocean-going boats ami that we talk glibly' of" the* willingness of the ratepayers to float a further loan. He also says that he “is in complete agreement with Mr. C. H. Williams’ opinion as expressed in his remarks during the debate.” Here is what Mr. Williams said: “If’had also been stated that the island breakwater could be constructed and thus provide an outer harbor for £53,000 over the £750,000, and if this was the case he would wliole-lieartcdly support the proposal to raise the extra money.” That is nearly the same as the position 1 take up, which is, that the Haiti Basin was not included in the original plans on which wc asked the ratepayers to agree to the loan of £750,000, and that none of the cost of it should he charged against the £|so,000. That does not mean that lam in favor of spending now more than £750,000. I quite agree that we should push on with the Haiti bas.'U, and with everything else required to enable us to change over as soon as possible; but to drop the outer liarbdr and scrap the quarry would, 1 am afraid, lay us open to legal difficulties. In January, 1024, Mr. Anderson, the Minister for Marine, told us that the small harbor were proposed then, was, in the opinion of the Crown Layv Office, illegal, and that he would do everything in liis power to stop it. It is' true that the Supreme Court has since then decided that it is possible for us to proceed with the Haiti basin as a part of the outer harbor; but if we were openly to drop the outer liarher and substitute for it a small coastal harbor I, doubt, if that decision would cover us. What I would like to do would be to push on very hard with everything- required for the change-over, but at the same time to get all the stone fronr Whareougaonga that can be got cheaply. This is suggested by Air. Furkcrt, and Air. Campbell tells us that we will need the stone; we cannot get all we need from Haiti. After the change-over, we’ll need to reconsider the whole problem! it may be that as. soon as the diversion is completed we’ll find the prophets of evil were right and that the complete encircling breakwater will be needed. On the other hand it may be that we’ll find ourselves with a snug little 18ft. harbor. Till we know which is tf> be the ease, I think it"is foolish to say what we’ll be doing in a year’s time. The sea and the river will decide that for us. In the meantime I think it is necessary to keep building the extension to the breakwater and to keep open, as cheaply as possible, our quarry. In a year’s time we may find that both arc essential. To drop them now would be to run the risk of legal difficulties. In all this I don’t think there is anything to justify Air. Kenway’s attack on myself. I no!ice AH. Kenway plays on the words economics and economy. Purely AH. Kemvay knows that though the word is the same, the meaning is completely different, just as with busyness and business. ITis suggestion that 1 should study and advocate economy is delightful. On that point, I think niv record, either public or private, will stand comparison‘With bis own. AH. Kenway also charges me with having “raised the old bogey of “country” as opposed to < town ’ interests. ’ ’ I know of nothing to justify this charge. What is he referring to? In conclusion, I’d like to draw attention to the tone of his whole letter. Such grandfatlierly condemnation is. I think, only excusable if it is absolutely just. —I am, etc. ' THOS. TODD.