THE SUMNER CANAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9534, 5 May 1909, Page 3

THE SUMNER CANAL.

DISCUSSION AT THE HARBOUR

BOARD

At to-day's meeting of the Lytteltpu Harbour Board the canal question cropped up, and one phaso was diecussed. ' __. , Clause 3 of tho Harbour Improvements Committee's report recommended the adoption of the engineer's report of June -5, 1908( that a 300-ton Priastman hopper dredge, at a cost of £12,000 be obtained ; afeo that tenders for building it in the dominion or elsewhere be advertised for. Mr Russell, M.P., said that last year the Board spent £11.259 in dredging Lyttelton Harbour. This process of dredging went on every year, and the cost appeared to be increasing. Tnis came of the board's anxiety to try to make Lyttelton Harbour capable of doing the business of the people. On a 4 per cent basis the expenditure on dredging represented capital sunk in that direction totalling £251,t75. Therefore, the Board had a standing debt of nearly £300,000, which was represented by the condition of Lyttelton Harbour. It came out of the revenue every year, and the Board had to take enough to keep the harbour fit for the purpose for which it was required. The Board was now proposing to spend £12,000 to purchase a dredge to more efficiently dredge the harbour. This amount would aU be sunk, because the information he had was that the present Priestman dredge, if sold, would fetch not more than one-twenty-fourth of the cost of the now one. Ho asked the Board whether this process of dredging was to go on for ever, or was it going to adopt the much more proper course of giving a chance for the consideration of the question of constructing another port giving direct access from Christchurch to the sea ? He was aware that members of the Board who held different views were returned by the Little Peddlington constituencies represented on the Board. Those representatives might regard the matter from a humorous point of view, but it was not a humorous matter from the point of view of the city of Christchurch, which was paying a' large proportion of the £10,000 for dredging Lyttelton harbour. (Dissent.) It was the trade of Christchurch which provided the larger proportion of the money. It was simply monstrous that Christchurch should be taxed in the way it was for the purpose of scooping out Lyttelton harbour, when by judicious expenditure the city could have access to the- sea by the construction of a canal. He protested against the proposal in the clause of the committee's report under consideration and would vote against it. After further discussion the clause was agreed to.