Taranaki Herald SATURDAY, MAY. 30, 1908. MISSTATEMENTS ABOUT THE HARBOUR.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13664, 30 May 1908, Page 4

Taranaki Herald SATURDAY, MAY. 30, 1908. MISSTATEMENTS ABOUT THE HARBOUR.

Such grossly misleading statements arc being made about tl[e harrow* at MoturcTa that \vtf- fie^*l af fer* no apology fdr I'eturniiig to the 'sMbjfect bttcc ugpigi; c»pecial|y since there- are "so 1 'jhiitcy -'toefyr people coming intp ; who knpVv n,dibing of t&e jhisto|y of theVliaxpour andlorg. liable ijo accept these misrepresentations as facts. •*■•■ At Kajrtyli 1 tn^ ttthjjr nignt Mr. v? Marx stated frßmetKe pulflie platform, if we* "may a&ejjt the press reports as correct, up.totlie present the hafboiu? hjis had a duin of spent upon it, which' led a , new settler who was present to remark that it seemed " a sink hole for money.'' Only a week ago we corrected Mr. Marx, but we will repeat that the expenditure on the actual construction of the harbour has not exceeded £2b(y,ooQ, made up of loan &190,102, released "sinking fund" £20,901, public subscriptions £966, and between £30,000 and £40,000 of revenue,, so .that he has over-rated the expenditure !by fully £280,000. The actual, cost to the ratepayers has amounted to £146,583, that being the sum paid by the way of rates in twenty-one years,, or equal to about £7000 a year. In addition to this the district owes a net amount of about £138,000 of the original loan. In return for the annual expenditure of about £7000 the district has reaped great advantages, for while freight and landing charges, before the breakwater was built,

amounted to sometMng like 30s, to 35s per ton, they are now from 12s to 15s, or less thim half. Last year over 72,000 tons of cargo was handled, and if the saving effected by the breakwater was only a half-a-crQwn.a ton it would amount in the aggregate to £9000 for the year.. Nor is this' saving made only by A New Plymouth and tfoe northern part of the district, for a very large portion of the trade of the port belongs to Southern Taranaki, in addition to which the freights and charges to Patea, which serves South Taranaki largely, have been reduced by several shillings a ton by the breakwater competition. Thus we maintain, and defy Mr.* Marx to disprove, that so far from the harbour having cost £529,000 it has not cofct half that sum, and that the ratepayers of the whole district are receiving] a full quid pro quo foj their rate* in reduced cost of height and charges on their ijnpdrts and exports. Then Mr. Marx does not appear to have made clear at his meetings the "sinking fund" incident. At any rate some of his hearers seem to have got hold of an altogether wrong idea. For the information of those who are not conversant with the history of what is sometimes called the "seized sinking fund," we may briefly explain that it was not sinking fund at all. The money ordered by the Supreme Court to be refunded by the. Sinking Fund Commissioners was made up almost entirely of interest earned by unexpended loan moneys* together with small sums derived from rents, port charges, and sale of beach stone, which had been improperly paid into the sinking fund account. The Board found that it was not obliged to set aside sinking fund and it ceased to do so, and fault is now being found with that polioy. But let us state the position and ask ratepayers how they . would have viewed'the collection of a higher rate, as would have been necessary if a sinking fund had been set aside annually. Fifteen or twenty years ago the rate necessary to meet the annual interest charges was a gr£at burden on .the eouir&ryi and for a while at least the maximum rate was not sufficient to meet those charges; How would the cpuntry have liked another £2000 a year added to that burden ? The ratepayers today are in a vastly better position to carry the harbour debt than they were ten or twenty years ago, and it, would have been a, needlessly crushing tax then to have made the ratepayers pay both interest and principal to the relief of the ratepayers of to-day^ That, however, by the' way ; what wo wish to make cleqr-is that i the Harbour Board never seized any sinking fund; the Supremo j Court- merely ordered to be re i- turned to its ordinary fund win* I I should not havo been paid oiit o< | it, but which was legitimate! \ « variable for harbour construe tion. Mr. Marx ought to kn<™ this, and if he desires to be fail h'« ought not to ratepayers at his meetings to gather and tak< away with them a wrong impres j sion of the facts*