Harbour Works.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13339, 30 March 1911, Page 6

Harbour Works.

TO THE EDITOE.

Sir, —There arc nine members on the Harbour Board. The four town members and Mr Murray issue what is called a “manifesto.” A week ago we were told that the Board could not agree on a policy. It is satisfactory that they have now done so. The policy now outlined proposes the promotion of a loan of some £200,000, a rate for which the town will be requested to pledge in the proportion of two-thirds to one-third for the country, for a deep-water port and inner harbour situated at the Heads, with all the disabilities and handling costs which I pointed out in previous letters. Wanganui is to be sidetracked entirely in favour of the deepwater at the Hoads, with no extension to town. In support of this policy not one single figure is quoted showing why the proposed deep-water port should not be extended to Wanganui. We are told that it will only cost £15,000 to dredge a deepwater basin of 15 acres—note, 15 acres at the Heads. This is eminently satisfactory, and no one would object, as no doubt the meat export trade of the district should be provided for at the Heads to avoid lightering to the roadstead or to town.. If, however, it costs only £15,000 for an inner harbour of 15 acres at the Heads, then the cost of a similar basin at \Van ganui could not bo very much, if any, greater, whilst the cost of maintenance would be nothing like the sand basin would be at the Heads. This being so. there is only loft the question of deepening the river channel to the town. This cannot possibly bo a serious matter, in view of the enormous saving that would be effected as against transhipping at the Heads, railage, and double handling charges to town. Not to provide in the proposed loan for the extension of a dec)) water channel and basin at Wanganui I have no hesitation in stigmatising as extreme folly. Assuming that our dee]) sea import and export tonnage amounted to fifty thousand tons (50,0(10 tons) per annum, and by having this direct to and from Wanganui we save 10s per ton as against transhipping at Wellington,' the saving to the district would bo £25,000 per annum, ;and in addition there would bo the increased revenue from shipping to the Board and impetus to local trade generally., If, however, the inner merchandise harbour is to .bo at the Heads, the saving —as I emphasised in my previous letters —would be so' small after railages and handling charges are paid that it would be folly to promote the proposed loan. The somersaulting of certain members whose signatures are appended to the manifesto is interesting. Mr Williams write that ho favoured extension to the town; he now signs the manifesto, which docs not contain this provision. Messrs Bignell and Murray indicated their disapproval of r. dredge, and the manifesto contains provision for a dredge. We are getting along very nicely. I quite agree with the manifesto, as far as it goes. Before the loan proposal goes to the ratepayers it will contain the provision for extension to the town. That is, if the people of Wanganui are true to themselves and the best interests of both town and country. What is the use of spending £200,000 if wo are not to benefit to the very fullest extent by such expenditure?—l am, etc., A. HATRICK. JP.S.— No doubt we will be told that to deepen the river to town will cost a fabulous amount, and that a basin in town will cost double or treble the cost at theHeads.