Harbour Matters.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11562, 19 May 1905, Page 2

Harbour Matters.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — Though your excellent leader on j Mr Bignell's letter re harbour matters deals pretty fully with th© Board's action j in the matter of Mr Field's sch«me, v there is another aspect not sufficiently empha- j sised, viz., the keeping bf Mr Fiold in siis- j pense; while, from the tenor of Mr Bignell's letter there never has been any serious intention of employing him. It is not easy, in print, in the face, of our libel laws, to adequately characterise the Board's action or rather inaction in this matter. One may, however, lawfully express unlimited disgust. Your public men are disappointing, and seem to utterly ignore the "Golden Rule." I do not- say that they are bad business men, but they appear" to be wanting in consideration for others; .this matter of Mr Field's scheme is a case in point. Another is the voting of money for certain bridges by the Waitotara County Council after such work had been condemned by tho ratepayers., i Still another is the treatment of those who gave way-laavo free of charge for the water main. These were not differentiated from all and- sundry in respect to charges j for water supply. Indeed, Mr" Bridge, who, as a member of the Waterworks Committee of the Borough" Council, helped to frame these regulations,, was good enough to tell me that, "if we people did not like the terms we need not have the water.", This to one who_ had giyen way-leave free of all charge or condition; so I was led to think that Wanganui believed in

"the good old plan That those should take who. h^ave ' the power, ■ '

And those should keep who can." For deeds were signed then, and we were fairly caught. The contemptuous reference by Mr Bignell to Mr "Field's "inexperience in marine engineering'has -b^en fully met by the older gentleman's letter in your paper some time since. Mr Hatrick is constantly bewailing the* loss of some i>lo,ooo per annum consequent on the unnavigable stat© of the river. \Thisis ,£833 per month, or =£200 per week. A week's loss, then, would have given Mr Field's plan a trial, and probably by this time the town and district would have been .£SOOO in pocket. Truly the ways of your public men are siich as a- plain man cannot understand. I suspect that the matter was too simple. It was a case of Naaman over, again. Besides the dredge was ordered, and the Board did not like to stultify itself. I have no doubt, that the dredge will do good work, but I know also that it will be a never-ending expense, and a heavy on© at that. After all we must blame the electors more than tho Board. Why, with such a majority of electors in favour of Mr Field's scheme, did these electors vote for the men they did? Why reject Mr Millward, who favoured the scheme? ( It seems to me that you vote by cliques, witliput much reference to the suitability of candidates. Probably the liquor men .would rally round Mr Hatrick, the Wesleyans- and- Prohibitionists - round Mr Bassett,, . the High Churchmen round Mr Williams (is he not a churchwarden or some other „-awe-inspiri-ng dignitary?). If this sort of thing continues, good-bye to progress, for "a house divided against itself cannot stand." It seems to me that new blood _is wanted badly in this town, for, after forty years' experience, I have never seen such a weak (if not culpable), vacillating,- and wholly contemptible policy pursued as has been the cas© with regard to this scheme. I must again remind your readers that I can have no personal interest, inasmuch as of all these parties I only know Messrs Hatrick and Bassett by even sighj;, and have had no dealing -with any of them except with Mr Bassett for timber. — I am, etc.,

J. W. KENAH.

P.S. — Was it by "expert" advice of the Reynolds type that that costly failure the north wall was erected? It seems that Mr Field spoke against it. — J.W.K.