WAIMAKARIRI HARBOUR.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11764, 31 July 1916, Page 2

WAIMAKARIRI HARBOUR.

BO RD'S EMPOWERING BILL RANGIORA LNCLUDED IN RATING AREA. PROTEST BY BOROUGH COUNCIL. In consequence of the "Waimakariri Harbour Board's Empowering Bill having been reported from the Local Bills Committee with the Rangiora Borough included in tho rating area, a special meeting of the Rangiora Borough Council was held ou Saturday afternoon to consider tho position. There were present the Mayor (Mr C. I. Jennings) and Councillors W. M'Gruer, W. Blackett, F. B. Lane and' W. J. Rouse. Tho Hon D. Buddo, M.P., and Mr F. Horrell, chairman of tho Rangiora County Council, wero also present by invitation.

Mr Buddo said no doubt tho members of the council were conversant with the principal features of tho original Bill. In being dealt with by tho Local Bills Committee some material alterations had been made, one amendment being tho inclusion of the borough in tho rating area. In the evidence before tho committeo no direct request for an alteration in the area was asked for, although Mr Horrell suggested' that if, as declared by the supporters of tho Bill, a harbour at Kaiapoi would benefit the whole of the northern district, w]iy should' not the rating rirea bo extended to include tho borough and other counties. As Rangiora had not asked to be included, he deemed it his duty'to at once communicate with the Mayor to ascertain tho opinion, of the council before the Bill came before tho House. Amongst other amendments wero the limiting of the amount of loan to £30,000 in place' of £50,000, and reducing tho rato of interest from 6 per cent to 5£ per cent. The question _at issue was whether the council desired Rangiora to be included or not. As representative for the district he was present simply to place the position before the meeting and receive _ instructions as, to tho council's desires, but in no way to give a lead to the decision arrived at.

Mr Horrell said' tho proposed harbour was not wanted, and the expenditure it would entail was not warranted by any benefits that might bo derived, iii giving evidence before tho committee in opposition to the Bill he made tho extension of the area one of the strong points, taking the reasonable view that if all-North Canterbury was to bo benefited by the harbour tho rating area should cover the whole. The committeo recognised tho importance of this contention, and laid special stress oiv tho exclusion of Rangiora Borough entirely surrounded by the county riding within the rating area. When tho supporters of the Bill were questioned on this point they invariably replied that the present Kaiapoi Harbour Board's district had been adhered to. He made it clear to the committee, however, that the true reason was that if Rangiora wero included there would be absolutely no hope of carrying tho poll to raiso tho required loan. Mr Horrell declared that tho Bill had been misnamed. It was not a "Waimakariri Harbour Board Empowering Bill, but a Kaiapoi Shipping Company Empowering Bill. All tho members of the deputation that gave evidence beforo the committee for tho Bill save one were directors' or intimately connected with the shipping company. He hoped' that the, council would not tako any steps to have Rangiora removed from tho rating area, but to press for a further extension of the area and thereby < assist to defeat the carrying of a poll in favour of a loan.

Mr Buddo said that if the council decided in favour of remaining in tbe area it would be open for it to ask for representation on the Harbour Board. .The opinion of the Local Bills Committee was that the Bill in its present form was workable, and it had been recommended' for the favourable consideration of the House. He also pointed out that if the whole harbour scheme proved a failure the liability of the ratepayers would amount to slightly more than one-fifth of a penny in the pound on the capital value. Councillor Lane said he could not see that any good reason had been advanced for the inclusion of Rangiora in the rating area, aud ho moved that objection should be made to, the amendment of the Bill in that direction, and that if the rejection was not upheld Mr Buddo should be asked to see that the borough be granted reasonable representation on the new Harbour Board. The motion -was seconded by Councillor Blackett. Councillor M'Gruer said ho considered the question was altogether too important to be decided by such a small meeting of the council, and he moved an adjournment till 9.15 p.m. The motion was seconded by Councillor Rouse and agreed to. On resuming at tho hour named, Councillors H. Boyd, C. Ayers, U. U Paterson and W. A. Rowse were present in addition to 'those who attended in the afternoon. . Mr Buddo again explained the posiMr Horrell spoke at considerable length. He stated that in the Rangiora riding of the county which was included in the rating area, 381 ratepayers out of 500, and representing 90 per cent of. the capital value of property, and 140 out of 350 ratepayers in the Eyreton riding of the Eyre County had signed petitions against the Bill. Seeing, however, that tho Bill provided for one man one vote, and a bare majority to carry tho loan proposal, there was a doubt as to whether tho Kaiapoi people, with the assistance of those living on the outskirts of the borough, would not be able to outvote the > county ratepayers, hence it was essential to get tho assistance of tho Rangiora borough ra.topavcrs to defeat the loan proposal. He would ask the councillors did they think it necessary or beneficial to have a harbour at Kaiapoi when they had such an excellent railway system to transport produce and other commodities to and from the port of Lyttelton ? They should be patriotic and support their railways, which would soon include the West Coast lino completed'. Councillor Boyd considered that they should not be guided by Mr Horrell. There was no reason why Rangiora should be mixed up with Kaiapoi in the matter, and it would bo well to be out of it altogether. There was no wish, he was sure, to be antagonistic to the advancement of Kaiapoi. Let each place look after its own interests. Ho certainly would object to being made use of in preventing Kaiapoi from carrying out the proposed schema. He maintained that it would be beneficial to tho farmers of the district to have a port at Kaiapoi. It was a fact that when the port was being used timber and coal were cheapened to consumers, and produce was shipped at a saving in freights. A<s to patriotism in using the railways, that was nonsense. Did they not seo constantly the farmers taking advantage of traction engine- and other modes of traffic for tho conveyance of their produce in preference to the railways ? Ho moved—" That this council, representing tho inhabitants of the borough of llangiora. protests against tho boron cell being included in the rating area proposed by the Waimakariri Harbour Board Empowering Bill." Councillor M'Gruer seconded the motion. He bad given the matter serines consideration, and had corno to the conclusion that it was the absolute duty of tho councillors, as representing: the ratepayers, to protest against being included in the Harbour Boards district. Mr Horrell was to be complimented for the strenuous way in which he had stood for his county in the matter, but ho felt sure tho council could not see its way to allow a fooling of sympathy to outweigh its 'duty* to the ratepayers. ■\i.. p..,ii,-> . : .-.:.i +i.n« n ;u •■ . ■>'.-!

understand that if the motion waa carried it would be an instruction to him to do all that lay in his power to have tho amendment removed from the Bill, and he would deem it his duty to comply.

Councillor Lane supported the motion. They were there to watch tho interests of tho ratepayers, and it would certainly not be studying their best interests if the amendment to the Bill was allowed to go without protest. The interests of the borough and county wero in most respects identical, but tho council did not wish to show any spirit of antagonism to Kaiapoi. Mr Horrell said the action of the council would mean that someone would bd called upon to pay a rate for which they would receive no benefits. He wished to say once again, and that most emphatically, that the Bill was a Kaiapoi Shipping Company's Bill, oncl further that Councillor Boyd was interested in that company. Councillor Lane thvught that Mr Horrell should withdraw the latter statement. They wished to discuss this matter in a perfectly amicable manner, therefore it was a pity Mr Horrell spoke in tho way he did. Councillor Boyd said in speaking he hail not given a thought to the interests of the shipping company. No member of the shipping company had over mentioned tho Bill to him or he to them. Ho was a Rangiora man, and in tho interests of the place ho wished it to be out of tho whole matter. Certainly he did not wish to act in a dog-in-the-manger spirit towards Kaiapoi, if the scheme was to be of special benefit to that town.

Councillor Rowse. stated that ho had experienced a saving of 3s 6d per ton in shipping potatoes from Kaiapoi. Councillor M'Gruer thought that Mr Horrell's contention that the Bill was a Kaiapoi Shipping Company's measure was a very strong. argumout in favour of the motion. If the harbour scheme was of a private monopoly character Rangiora was best out of it. Mr Horrell said, in reference to' his remark regarding Councillor Boyd, he did not make it in any unfriendly spirit, but ho knew Mr Boyd was connected with the company, or had some interest in it, consequently ho thought that it would naturally lead him to favour the harbour scheme.

Councillor Boyd said' he accepted Mr Horrell'B apology. He bad viewed the whole matter from the standpoint of a llangiora man, and had spoken accordingly. The motion was then put and tv&s carried \manimously.