HARBOUR BOARD REPEESENTATION.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 18, 26 February 1914, Page 6

HARBOUR BOARD REPEESENTATION.

1 To the Editor of THE SUIT. 1 Sir, —In his letter in your issue, of j the 24th inst., Mr B. Moore fails to jj.' present the i&c'tcr «bf tHejr matter -with . that fairness and impartiality we expect in the chairman of an important r publie body. » Mr Moore knows per- ' fectly well that Christchureh believes it t has .been heavily h&Udicappeft 'from-an [ industrial viewpoint l by'its • isolated j position, and that if' it>: had direct ac- , cess to the sea its commercial- growth ; "would go ahead by . leaps and bounds. : Knowing this, he attempts to . side r track the argument by importing a side issue which has nothing to do with the question from tlle ! Christchureh \ standpoint. He asked, v • among; • other r .things, if the workiug of Lyttelton Harbour Board "has nofbeeir carried . on in the. best interests of North -C&ri- , terbury.'' I would answerthat the' interests of North ' Canterbury' ■'have probably been studied\so carefully that mo consideration lias been givearto the interests.of Christehureh City. •• Kaiapoi—-of; which town ,Mr-».Moore ' is an honoured .in. fho happy position of ;having a navigable waterway: at its door,: %a benefit which its. merchants appreciate' very , liighly, ■ and Christehureh cannot be blamed for thinking that what is '. good; for -fhe • town of Kaiapoi' cannot be-bad fKr. the ; : city of Christehureh. . Christehureh has no feelipg of autagonism towards 1 yucli places, as. JCaikoura, Kaiapoi, or Alia rca, but it is not now altogether blind ..to its own. needs,- and fails, to see ajiy valid reason why the votep in these or' other districts which eqjoy the advantages of .direct access to, the-sea should be longer allowed to dictate , its policy autl-'ta impose: restrictions on its, commercial developments. To put it church' has for inajiy^gears' bedii'"commercially asleep;" if is self, 'and when thoroughly aTfrak'eneri • to a full realisation of its eomniereffil possibilities, it will' carve 5: out its ot-'.h ..industrial withQutnitsHfeag -per-, mission from the jLyttelton,. Harbour Board'.—l. am,' etc,, . : ; '.. - , ,■* ' • T. • . ' . JAMm.QOLpiiiK. , Linwood, February 25. , To the Editor of, THE. BJJN... ... Sir,—As Mr: Moore, .of .Kaiapoijhas seen lit to sneer at the remark I made at the deputation to 'the Hon. t;he Minister of Marine —that ! tlie Lyttelton Harbpur Board; has . not al; present the legal right to levy fates, and in doing , so. to inform. .that-if the ,gentlemen • who, are witli mel trying -to get. a more equitable adjustment "of -the representation on thp board—get control of the board's affairs, raiting powers will be obtained, and "the "fiahai scheme gone on with expense of the country,it is again necessary to remind the people of ■ Canterbury that Mr "Moore is repeating a .mfs-stateihent which has-been made t;he. J opp'oiients of the canal ' many : b&fclre anil refuted. an; ; opponent of the. canal as the/lat'eiMr Gr. Laurenson was reporte<] 1908, to have said:—''' The. ratepayers of the district affected have td decide" whether, the canal shall bd Constricted. The supporters of the scheine will 'feenrl up to Parliament a Bill to provide for a po.ll of the ratepayers; on -the«subject. '' The .ratepayers affected referred; to by Mr Laurensou, Mr aware, has been defined by the Canal League as. the eity andJ adjacent districts the north of the Port Hijlls. : Many- of- the fallacies of the .so-calledt..reliable- and unbiassed reports refei;red v ,tQ' by- Mr , Moore I have already exposed. When the canal question is officially before the ratepayers it Will be them to judge whether the. reports are reliable-or unbiassed.. Personally, lam confident that .the. ratepayers-, fvriil show tiieir opinion of thein t . by, authorising the loan to be raised.. In the meantime, until the legal authority is given to take a poll of the ratepayers concerned on , the question,: the -gentlemen ! whose ability and superior intelligence Mr Moore appears to recognise, fail see why the movement 'for the canal should be handicapped b!y the partisan opposition of the antagonistic, majority of Lyttelton and-cduntry members on. the board, who so persistently misrepresent that the canal would have to be -paid for by the country districts. The policy and management of the; Harbour Board I will probably discuss, on another: ocr xiasidn. v At in reply to ... Mr Moore 'is Question, J will only say that I am one of those who are 6f opinion' that the policy of. the. Lyttfelton and country representatives on the board has. -not been in th.e best interests of North .Canterbury, and that at least v £loo,ooft spent recently i: or how being spent' in reclamation' works.. and .whar.ves in.. * Lyttelton would have been better spent in improving the navigation of the Estuary, so as to make us to some extent independent of " Lyttelton ..jfintt prevent the extensive * diversions of trade that have been' made to "Timaru and Kaiapoi.—l am, ete<j " " - '■•> > CHAS. ALLISON. ' Febi'u&ty- 25, 1914.