CORRESPONDENCE

Southland Times, Issue 19123, 15 December 1923, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE

BLUFF AND INVERCARGILL HARBOURS. To the Editor. Sir,—The proposal that the Bluff Harbour Board should take over the Invercargill Harbour, holds so many possibilities for future complications, that I think it should receive the most careful consideration of the people of Southland before bringing it into existence. I have sufficient respect for the opinions of Mr Bain to know that he would not make it, without having satisfied himself that it would result in general benefit to the community, but until such time as the reasons for it are made known, I consider that the public are entitled to treat it with grave suspicion. It is well known that there are men in Invercargill who desire to improve the shipping facilities of that harbour and their ambition* is a laudable one, provided that the cost is borne by the town. The grave danger that I see in the proposal, is" that two parties may be created on the Board, one wanting to make a harbour at Invercargill and the other trying to retain the Bluff, with The result that the Bluff, which Southland must depend upon as its deepwater port, may suffer through the failure of the Board to unanimously concentrate upon its development. We have several examples of that kind in the Dominion, where Boards controlling two ports, are composed of opposing factions, each fighting for its own parochial interests, with the result that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been wasted to the detriment of the harbours, and the province in which they are situated. Southland is too small to maintain two harbours and nothing should be allowed to happen which is likely to weaken the resources of the port, upon which it has to depend, by drawing upon it/for the support of a rival that is unnecessary. Notwithstanding the criticism levelled at the Board, I consider the Bluff Harbour the best managed public institution in Southland. Those managing it in its infancy were shrewd enough to understand that the only way it could struggle into existence against a powerful rival, was by “keeping out of debt,” and keeping the charges down; and the present satisfactory position of the port is due to the steady maintenance of that policy.

The all important thing to merchants, is quick and cheap delivery of goods, and that cannot be secured through the duplications of harbours, and the consequent heavy increase in capital charges. The fact that goods are handled four times between the ship and the store in Invercargill is sufficient proof that there is a defect somewhere in the system, which requires remedying and the policy of the Railway Department in charging—what I consider—excessive freights on port lines, in conjunctfbn with the numerous handlings, makes landing charges excessive. The system of sorting goods, seventeen miles from the ship, will never prove satisfactory, and if the Railway Department cannot see its way clear to reduce freight rates, on the port line, other means of transport should be consideered, the same as is being done in other places. I don’t wish io suggest to the people of Invercargill what they should do to make their harbour and endownments profitable; but I am terribly impressed with the fact that the Borstal Farm is capable of carrying eleven hundred cows, and if that has missed the observation of the City Fathers, they would do well to recognise its significance. I am, etc., W. HINCHEY. OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF BABES? To the Editor. Sir, —Might I suggest to the teachers of the South School that next week they ask their pupils to write their impressions of the Foundation Stone ceremony. If this is done and the papers passed on to those who assisted at the ceremony they will no doubt learn something to their advantage. My young hopeful said “that Mr Hanan talked a jolly long time, used a lot of big words and we could not understand him. Mr Jones wasn’t so bad, we knew what he was talking about.” In a few years these same children will have a vote! I am, etc., FATHER. ANSWER TO DEAN BURKE. To tho Editor. Sir, —Dean Burke heads his letter “Cuttlefish Tactics.” I think he could not have a better title for his letter. His cheap sneer about my not betting is quite beneath my contempt. He accuses me of cuttle-fish tactics and cowardly slander. The boot is altogether on the other foot. Dr. Kelly made a vile, slanderous attack on our Protestant education and Protestantism generally, and I replied to him and that reply has not been answered in one particular.

Dean Burke challenged the truth of only one statement in my letter; but did iiot bring one tittle of evidence to refute it, contenting himself with cuttle-fish tactics having no bearing whatever on the issue involved. On the other hand, I produced authorities that fully justify me in having made the statement 1 did; and what has Dean Burke produced; nothing but bluster and Bluff. It is quite evident Dean Burke has got himself into a hole and is completely bogged, and the more he flounders the deeper he gets. His utterances savour more like those of a schoolboy who has lost his temper than what we might expect from a great church dignitary like Dean Burke. I am, etc., PROTESTANT.