The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, AUGUST 6, 1909. THE HEATCOTE SHIP CANAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13973, 6 August 1909, Page 4

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, AUGUST 6, 1909. THE HEATCOTE SHIP CANAL.

The "Press" of yesterday devotes a page to extracts and abstracts of the majority and minority reports of the Lyttelton Harbour Board's committee, which was set up to investigate the financial aspects of the proposed ship canal from Sumner Bay to Heathcote bridge, with a dock-harbour near the bridge. It is to be presumed that the material published fairly represents the contents of the long reports. A majority of five condemn the proposal; a minority of four approve of it, and incidentally condemn the majority. The latter might scorn to be unnecessary, but it is not useless, inasmuch as it shows the frame of mind in which the minority dealt with the question. Before the committee was appointed, the Harbour Board was divided in opinion regarding the wisdom ,of constructing the canal, and. the committee was- purposely composed of members representing both sides, j As was to be expected, the committee has been divided all along, so much so that the two sections do not appear to have been able to mutually accept a single important factor of the problem the, were set to consider and report upon. At all events their reports set out data so entirely different as to lead one to that conclusion. An unanimous' report was therefore impossible. It is not worth while going into the details. Suffice it to say that the net financial result arrived at by the majority indicates that- a. satisfactory canal must entail a harbour rate over a rating district to be defined, to produce asum ranging from £50,000 to £IOO,OOO a. year,. dependent upon the cost not exceeding the lowest or reaching, the highest estimates; the lowest, in their opinion, providing for an inefficient canal and harbour. The present general and special rates on the city, the neighbouring 9 boroughs and the Selwyn Countw road districts, onlv amount to a bout'£9o,ooo. The, minority report, on the contrary, asserts that the cheapest plan offered provides a sufficient canal and harbour, and that instead of a deficiency to be made up by rate, there would be a large surplus from revenues -and savings. A careful perusal of their report and figures, as given in the "Press" summary, gives as the impression that the minority have been extremely careless in their handling of the returns they had to work upon. In regard to general considerations there is absolutely no comparison to be made between the two reports, but contrasts only. The majority have dealt with the question in hand from many points of view, and in a calm business-like and judicial manner; while tho minority have indulged in optimistic flights of imagination, and in attacks upon "critics," "tactics," and "bitter opponents." The "Lyttelton Times" appears to be disappointed at the result, and. finds fault with both sections of the committee for the "half-hearted fashion" in which they have done their work- ' a criticism which does not seem to /it ■at all the majority report. The

" Press," on the other hand, remarks tlmt " unless something stronger than the present minority report can be adduced in refutation of the facts and (inures in the majority report, we look upon the canal project as doomed." Taking a disinterested view of the matter, we arc pleased that the majority have made out a good case against the canal, the minority a hopelessly weak one in its favour. It seems an utterly absurd idea, to throw aside the splendid provision which Nature has made for a harbour for North Canterbury—its one original drawback having been remedied .Ivy the construction of the tunnel —to throw away the fine port and town that have been made there, and to set up in their place an artificial affair at enormous cost. It is all very well to "scrap" machines, ships, or other appliances—even harbours —if better are to he had at a. profit; hut even the minority of the committee do not claim that the proposed canal port would be a better harbour than Lyttelton; their advocacy of it is based on finance only. So far as position is concerned it would be only two miles nearer to Christchurch, and it stands to reason that the saving of two miles of railage (even with an extra "tunnel rate 1 ') on goods the bulk of which must come from or go to country stations, cannot possibly justify the

"scrapping" of a, port like Lyttelton. To our mind this has all along .scorned a- preposterous notion. Wo are thorp.t'orc pleased that the majority report lias condemned it, and in such a. clear and comprehensive mariner that, nothing more should ever he heard of it.