HARBOUR BOARD WORKS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13338, 29 March 1911, Page 2

HARBOUR BOARD WORKS.

The Other Side of the Question. ' TO THE EDITOR. Siv.—l have before me (in Sydney) a ropy of your issue of the Uth inst. contain mg a letter written by Mr Ha trick, giving Jus views on the proposed extension ol harbour works. I desire to refer to some of tlia points raised in his letter. First let me say I agree with him in his opening remarks that there must be no mistake. The cpiestion of whether the deep, sea port shall be at Castlecliff or in town should receive full consideration. I venture to say that in the first instance when harbour works were first started, if it had been decided tor spend the first loan money to improve the bar instead of spending so money in erecting training walks in the river, we- would have had many years ago more water on the bar than ivc have to-day. Care must therefore lie taken to earmark very ample funds, when raising the proposed new loan, to provide for completing the works over bar, and also for the purchase of an up-to-date dredge, if this forms part of the engineer’s scheme. Mr Hetrick says that any attempt to carry a loan proposal that provides for a deep natcr port at Castlecliff will result in failure, and ho gees on to say, speaking of the engineer’s plans “guess those plan's will have to bo revised.”' I think it will ■ be found that the ratepayers will be disposed to support the engineer’s plans in prcierenca. to a layman’s. Mr Ilatrick says also that the main factor ‘or consideration is the ccst of dredging a deep water channel! to town as against the annual cost of ’ railage from Castled iff to Wanganui, which he estimates at <£4ooo a. year. Let medea! with this point, Mr Ilatrick seems to suggest that once the river is ; dredged that no further money will be re- | cpiired, to maintain the depth which must i be 2-5 to 20 feet. Tins is finite contrary to the experience in other parts. Dealing with the question in a business way to make the comparison the interest on ‘the cost of dredging and the expenditure , for maintaining the dredged out depth has to bo set against the railage from Castlecliff- to Wanganui. I am afraid Mr Ilatrick lias enormously over-estimated the cost of railage. I cannot conceive how he has arrived at his figures (d£4000) because a wry large portion of the shipping will continue to use the present town .wharf. It must be remembered, too, that if the deep watr port ■ is at Castlecliff the produce from the Freezing Works and dairy produce, which will in future form an important part of our exports, owing to Wanganui being appointed a grading port, can be put on board the ocean steamer practically free, but if the deep sea port is in town these industries will he penalised for the nroduce will either have to be railed to town or lightered, and if the latter the distance from the works will be about three times as far as the present method of lightering in the roadstead. Mr Hatriok, I think, must have overlooked this. To carry out the extended scheme it is absolutely necessary that country ratepayers join with the town, and I feel sure they would not support a scheme which, as I have shown, is prejudicial to the freezing and dairying industry. Assuming we get ocean steamers into the river it does not follow that all imports from Home will come direct to Wanganui. Certain lines of goods, such as drapery, etc., required promptly so as to be available for the opening of the season would, no doubt, be shipped direct to Wellington and transhipped to Wanganui in the ordinary way. Large drapery wholesale firms tliat are represented in Wanganui will no doubt obtain their supplies from their head distributing branches in Wellington or other parts. Bulk goods will be imported direct, but I take it that the various firms will have distributing stores at Castlecliff same as at Napier and goods for up and down the line will be sent on direct so that the extra four mile railage tacked on will not amount to much. During the off season, when there is no produce offering for London direct, I fear it would not pay to send direct steamers to Wanganui at all, say, during the months from July to November or December. J am pointing these things out .as I consider that Mr Hatriok is altogether out in his estimate of the cost of railage. I atp conviheed that the interest on tho cost of the extra dredge to town and the cost of maintenance will represent more than the railage. Next point. Mr Ilatrick is unnecessarily alarmed about the competition from New' Plymouth and the Main Trunk line if the port is at Castlecliff. As I have before stated, the qxtra four miles tacked on to loner distance mileage would be very small, and on some classes of goods hardly appreciable. The difference on wool I do

not think would average more than the present cost of cartage. 1 consider that Mr Hatrick has over-estimated the value of the land to be reclaimed. In apparent sunport of his figures he says that land in the . Avenue was recently sold at ,£84,000 an acre. Candidly, I cannot see a connection. Does he infer that if the deep sea port is made at- Castleelilf that the land >n the Avenue will be of less value? He goes .on to say that what he has outlined would only be Wellington foreshore history repeated. The conditions between Wellington and Wanganui are not analogous. Wellington's reclamation is in the heart of the city’s commerce. What firm, for instance, would think of building warehouses, offices, or shops down past the gas works > That the reclaimed land will have value no one, will dispute, but so will the land reclaimed at Castlecliff. My object in writing is for the purpose of endeavouring to show that if the engineer’s recommendations to 'have the deep sea port at CasticclifC is given effect to the result will no lie disastrous as Mr Hatrick seems to think. Quite the contrary, as far as our main exports are concerned, and this is of the utmost vital importance, both to the town and district. What I fear is if the town proposal is advocated that the country vote may bo prejudiced hereby, and the whole scheme for further improvements defeated.—l am, etc., JOHN STEVENSON.