The Timaru Herald. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1890.

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4820, 17 April 1890, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1890.

It will lio uucn l>y oui' report of jesterday's Hiirljour Uosird inncliiijj tlinl., on the motion of Mr 'IVudieiiiiilciT, si'ivso'ltation v;ii;i p:iKM'<l for )-.l;n:in;; to v sopanito account £10,000 of I lie balance

of loan, " for the purpose of meeting any expenditure that the Harbour Board [may at any future time consider necessary to check the travelling shingle from damaging the harbour." We cannot say that we approve of the resolution ; m fact, there is a good deal to be said against it, and nothing substantial m its favour. Whilst, therefore, it is satisfactory to note that it met. with opposition from three members, it is to be regretted that the remaining seven gave Lheir support to a motion which is either useless or mischievous, and which provides for a loan expenditure not improbably open to objection on legal gronnds — an expenditure which, even supposing that difficulty not to arise, is a departure from sound economical principles, however plausible the resolution may at first sight appear. We employ the word useless m connection with it, because it neetns that what the Harbour Board do at oue meeting they cun undo at smother, and that the process of " earmarking," as ie is called, is neither more nor less than a sham. This was actually advanced by Mr Teschemaker as an argument m favour of the motion. " Ear-marking the money," he said, " does not mean locking it up altogether. The resolution can be rescinded." But let us suppose (hat the resolution is not rescinded, and that the Harbour Board proceed to act on it. It takes for granted that the shingle difficulty is something which cnn legitimately be dealt with out of loan. Primarily that is a question to be decided by reference to the Act nnder which the money was borrowed, and to the interpretation clause of the Harbours Act, 1878, which contains a definition of the works for which the Timaru Harbour Board was empowered to contract a loan. A perusal of the clause will show that a great deal of latitude was allowed, and no doubt if the money was borrowed with the intention of spending it, or a portion of it, on " fighting the shiugle," the lenders could not fairly object to the course now proposed. But emphatically it was not borrowed for that purpose. The English capitalist was not informed that part of the money would be spent on a breakwater and part m making provision for dealing with shingle accumulations. The whole of the loan was for harbour works properly so called, and nothing else was iv the minds either of the borrowers or the lenders. However, we do not desire to make too much of the doubtful legal aspect of the course proposed to be taken by the Harbour Board, and we admit that lawyers might hold that expenditure for removing the shingle accumulations would be warranted by tLe terms of the interpretation clause of the Harbours Act, IS7S. But such an opinion, even though supported by a decision of the Courts, would by no means settle the question of vhat the Hnrbour Board ought to do under the circumstances m which they are placed, and having m view the probability of an annual though not very terrifying accumulation of shingle to deal with. Taking a broad view of the matter we should say that nothing m the shape of a permanent annual charge should be provided for out of loan. It is reasonable to put the case m this way : It is admitted that when the time arrives for commencing to deal with the shingle, ths expenditure for that purpose will thenceforth be permanent. The engineer calculates that if his plan be adopted, the annual cost of removal will be about £1000. That Bum will have to be forthcoming from some source or other if the harbour is to be kept open. We would ask whether the Harbour Board are o£ opinion that they should raise loans for the purpose, and if so.whether they have any idea of the terms upon which money for such a constantly recurring expenditure covld be obtained, even if the legislature conld be pnr-suadc-d to give its sanction. The Harbour Board would find themselves blocked at llie outset, They would be told that their ordinary annual expenditure should bo provided for yearly without recourse being had to loans. It would be no new doctrine, but something that is universally admitted. If it would be true a few years hence when the shingle had still to be removed and this £10,000 had been spent, it is equally true to day when the shingle is not immediately troublesome, and the £10,000 is safely m the bunk. There should be no hesitation about applying the sound principle. The temptation to divert loan money from its legitimate purposes should be scouted. There would not be so much occasion to insist on the point if the Harbour Board had no need of their balance for works unquestionably within tho scope of loan expenditure. But it was only the other day that the subject of, more wharf accommodation was brought up, and the harbourmaster ltt. it he clearly understood that, m his opinion, the trade ot the port even now I demanded that two more deep wntur berths should bo provided. No doubt be is quite right, and expenditure) on such work would bo highly judicious. The Harbonr ßoard, however, shelved tbo question m the coolest manner nud without making proper inquiry. IE we were to admit, which we do not, that the proposal for more deep water berths was premature, tho situation would not bo much altered. It is the hope and belief of every one, including the members of the Harbour Board, that the trade of tho port will before long expand very considerably, It must do so m the natural -course of events, and it is certain that legitimate employment will bo found for every farthing of tin; loan balance. It ought to be held sacred for such purposes, and not " ear-marked " to bu thrown into Caroline Buy us soon as the engineer reports thut the time for removing the shingle has arrived.