THAMES HARBOUR BOARD BOUNDARIES (REPORT ON, BY MR. A.E.G. RHODES, M.H.R., TOGETHER WITH THE EVIDENCE TAKEN THEREON).

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1890 Session I, H-07

H.—7

1890. NEW ZEALAND.

THAMES HARBOUR BOARD BOUNDARIES (REPORT ON, BY MR. A.E.G. RHODES, M.H.R., TOGETHER WITH THE EVIDENCE TAKEN THEREON).

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

REPORT. Sib, Hereford Street, Christchurch, New Zealand, 12th May, 1890. At the request of the Hon. Mr. Mitchelson I visited the Thames, accompanied by Mr. William Berry, jun., and on the 11th February, 1890, I held an inquiry at the Thames Harbour Board Office in regard to the proper boundaries of the Thames Harbour. lam sending herewith a copy of the evidence taken during the inquiry. It is absolutely necessary, in the interests of the up-country settlers, that the Waihou River should be kept freed from snags, &c., and open to navigation; and as, I believe, the River Board only his control to its junction with the Hikutaia River, the portion between that junction and Opani Point should be put under the control of some local body. Alter carefully considering the evidence (which dealt entirely with the Waihou River) and iuspecting the harbour and river, 1 am of opinion that the Thames Harbour should extend up the Waihou River a distance of five nautical miles in a straight line from Opani Point. One of the grievances complained of by the settlers on the banks of this portion of the river is that the Borough of Thames had an undue representation on the Harbour Board. [ think these settlers might be allowed some direct representation apart from the county representative. The fact of the wharves being private property—although a reason that the Harbour Board should buy them or make some reduction in dues—hardly warrants interference by Government. I have. &c, Tho Hon. the Minister of Marine, Wellington. Abthur B. G. Rhodes.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Thames, 11th February, 1890. Mb. A. E. G. Rhodes, M.H.R., held an inquiry to-day, at tho Harbour Board Office, in regard to the limits of the Thames Harbour. Present: Messrs. .1. McAndrew (Chairman of the Harbour Board), A. Brodie, McGowan, and Wood (members of the Harbour Board), Cassrell, Dearie (Ohinemuri), Gillespie (manager of the Kauri Timber Company), L. J. Bagnall (proprietor of the timber mill at Turua), Bayldon (Harbourmaster), and W. Carpenter (Secretary of the Board). Mr, Rhodes stated the object of the inquirj . Mr. W. Carpenter, Secretary of the Board, examined. Mr. Carpenter : I think in a few words, sir, I shall be able to place before you a tolerably clear outline of the position of this Board with reference to the limits of the harbour. In the first instance, we take our starting-point from the Proclamation issued in 1874. That Proclamation— you have it before you in the preamble to tho Bill introduced into the House last session—states that the seaward limits of the port shall be a circle of five nautic miles radius from Opani Point. Opani Point you will see on the plan before you, and a circle of five miles radius, taking in this much of the river [describing on plan]. That was included within the circle, and for several years— in fact, until 1887, I think it was—tho Harbour Board, and indeed all parties concerned, had agreed to an understanding that the circle was to be taken as comprehending the limits of the harbour, and not merely the arc of a circle. It was presumed by the members of the Board that the officers of the Government, in making this Proclamation, understood their duty. It was believed when they described the seaward boundary they also intended to include certain waters running into that area so described in the seaward boundary, as is the practice—so far as I and the members of the Board know —in all countries. It would be a simple absurdity to suppose that two points of land comprised a harbour. I would ask you when you are at leisure to read Mr. Hesketh's opinion upon the question. It was found in process

2

2

of time, as mills and work increased up the river, that an immense quantity of sawdust was sent down, destroying the fishing industry at entrance of the river, and doing injury to the river-banks. Snags were also brought down. In consequence of this, application was made to the Government when Mr. Larnach was Minister of Marine, and he, after the fullest inquiry, deemed it right that the Board should have control up the rivers, extending to Te Aroha in one case and the head of the navigation in the others. It so happened that the people in the up-river had been agitating for the formation of a River Board, and, I believe, within a fortnight or thereabouts a warrant was issued and a River Board was constituted. This led, in 1888, to a further inquiry, caused by tho objections of the owners of saw-mill and timber property up the river. The outcome was that the Hon. Mr. Fisher, who then represented the Government as Minister of Marine, came down here to hold an inquiry—not exactly in the same manner as you are doing, but he came down. He met the members of the Board, and it was agreed that he should meet a deputation of the Board. However, persons from the up-country were allowed to meet him here. The Board was sent for when the inquiry had nearly concluded, and so far the Board as a Board had no opportunity of laying the matter before him in any shape. However, he went away, and immediately thereafter a Proclamation was issued which defined the limits of the Port of Thames. [Witness indicated boundary on plan.] That was the result of Mr. Fisher's inquiry. The injustice of such an act as that was patent to all concerned, and the consequence was that representations were made to the Government again, and Sir Harry Atkinson, I imagine, caused a further Proclamation to be issued, which brought back the jurisdiction of the Board to the very boundary described in 1874, and in exactly the same words; so that, after all these years, after all the knowledge they had upon the matter, yet the Marine Department gives us the harbour that everybody else says was no good whatever. They find—l suppose it was in consequence of the opinion given by Mr. Hesketh—that probably that was not a clear definition : that they ought to state the in-shore boundaries in the Bill introduced into the House. I want you to notice one short paragraph, and I tljink nothing more is necessary than to show you that. In a letter of the 15th July, 1889, the Minister in charge of the department forwards copies of a Bill. This Bill declares the limits of the port under the original warrant of September to be thus described in the schedule—that is, all the waters included within a radius of five nautic miles from Opani Point. So that the officers of the department, during all these years, and I believe quite rightly too—for any man of nautical experience, or who has had anything whatever to do with the sea, knows perfectly well that the Proclamation of 1874 was a just and perfect description of the boundaries of the harbour. I speak ex cathedra on this matter, for I have had some experience of nautical matters, and that is why I venture to set my opinion in opposition to Mr. Hesketh's. Any one who has a knowledge of nautical matters knows that a seaward boundary cannot possibly include, as Mr. Hesketh says, lakes, rivers, and inland waters. A nautical man knows that a seaward boundary is a boundary out to sea, and nothing more or less. That, in a few words, is a history of the position of this Board with reference to tho limitation of the harbour. We come next to the financial question, and I wish this to have some weight in an inquiry of this kind. When money was borrowed in 1880 or 1881 it was with a distinct assurance to and understanding on the part of the lenders of that money that the Board had a jurisdiction which extended up to the boundaries that I have described—that is, within the live-mile circle. The lenders of the money knew perfectly well that there was a certain amount of revenue derivable —and which was hoped to be increased—from the up-river traffic—that is, from saw-mills and other sources. 1. Mr. Rhodes.] Who was the money borrowed from?—ln that instance, from the benefit societies. 2. Have you any correspondence to show what representations were made to them ?—There are members here who were in the front rank of those who obtained the money. I shall mention Mr. Bagnall's name, who, I believe, was Chairman of the Board at the time. The only letter I have before me to show the feeling of tho members of the societies in reference to the matter is this: — Silt,— Thames, 29th May, ISBB. Noticing a telegram published in Saturday's Thames Star, relating to curtailing the limits of your Board, and as representatives of one of the societies who have loaned money to your Board, we deem it our duty to draw your attention to the fact that our securities are likely to bo diminished in consequence of the action of the Government, and would respectfully request your Board to again call the attention of the powers that be to this fact, as we consider that no one has any right to interfere with our securities. We have, &c, M. Whitehead, A. MoINTYBE, Curtis Moore, Trustees of the Loyal Waikato Lodge of Oddfellows, Thames. Tho Chairman, Thames Harbour Board. That was the letter received at the time of Mr. Fisher's Proclamation, and it bears out the statement I have made as to how the societies regarded the up-river properties. This letter [letter to the Premier of 4th December, 1888] is rather a long one, but perhaps it will be of some service in reference to this inquiry. It is a letter that was written to Major Atkinson. 3. Are any of these letters as to the financial position private '.'—They have all been published. 4. There is nothing of a private or confidential nature?—-No; I have, of course, a statement here as to the financial position of tho Board for this year. 5. I should like that put in. This letter (produced) had reference to the supposed necessity for the introduction of this Bill [Bill produced] . This is a letter from the Premier's Office. He was down here and had an interview with me, —who was then Chairman of the Board, —and he was fully of opinion that the claims of the Board ought to be recognised. Sir Harry Atkinson seemed to me perfectly satisfied of tho just claims as to tho Board's boundaries which we now ask for. His letter is as follows :—

3

H.—7

Sir,— Premier's Office, Wellington, 23rd January. 1889. I have the honour to inform you that Che Government has had under its consideration your letter of the -1 th December last relative to the position of tho Thames Harbour Board. After consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown, the Government learns that at present it is powerless to do anything to place the Board in such a position as is desired, and that legislation is absolutely necessary to extricate tho Board from its difficulties. In the meantime, however, tho Government will indemnify the members of the Board for the payment of any coupons they make, and will introduce a Bill at the next session of Parliament having for its object the settlement of the whole question. I have, &c, The Secretary, Harbour Board, Thames. H. A. Atkinson. That is the Bill you have before you. The Board addressed the following letter to the Premier :— Sir,— Office, Thames Harbour Board, 4th December, 1888. I have the honour, by direction of the Thames Harbour Board, to again bring its position before you, and Mr. Hesketh's opinion on that position. Copy of Mr. Hesketh's opinion I also again enclose. The opinion of Mr. Hesketh is that the action of the Government deprives the Board of the power to collect dues, and also makes it illegal of the Board to pay coupons on the loans, or even to repay the loans themselves. Messrs. Bagnall Bros., Blair and Gillespie, the Kauri Timber Company, the Waihi Gold-mining Company, and all or nearly all who have large amounts to pay the Board, refuse to pay dues at all. The various solicitors whom these firms have consulted have told them the same as Mr. Hesketh has told the Board, viz., that the Board cannot recover dues, because, although a Board, the Port of Thames possesses no boundaries, the Proclamations, with the exception of that of Mr. Larnaeh, being incorrectly worded. For the same reason, Mr. Hesketh says the Board had no bower to borrow, and no power to pay back the money borrowed or the interest (coupons) due on such loans. lam directed to remind you that the Board pointed out to you its position, and sent Mr. Hesketh's opinion to you, early in October last; and, with the exception of receiving a telegram from the Marine Department that the Government was considering tho position of the port's boundaries, nothing has been done. Of course the members of the Board want to pay the Board's debts, and to be put in a position|to recover dues due to the Board, and this is all Government is asked to do, viz., to validate the payment of the coupons and loans as they become due. Mr. Hesketh has told the members of the Board that if they pay these coupons they can be called upon to repay the money out of their private estates. The other matter is, that the boundaries be so gazetted that the Board can enforce payment of dues. As it is the Government's Proclamation and not any wrongdoing of the Board that prevents the Board recovering dues, and as these dues unrecovered and refused to be paid amount to over £200, will Government either pay this amount to the Board or will it authorise a case to be tried in the Supreme Court ? (Bagnalls owe now about £120.) In concluding this letter, lam directed to say that, if you will be good enough to give tho Board an indemnity, or in some other way provide a means whereby it can pay the coupons with legal safety, it will endeavour to do so early in January ; but, unless also the Board is placed by the Government in a position to recover the dues owing by Messrs. Bagnall, Blair and Gillespie, Waihi Gold-mining Company, and others, it cannot pay these coupons even in January. I trust you will pardon this long letter, but the position of the Board is quite desperate. The coupons will be due Ist January next. I have, &c.. The Hon. the Premior, Wellington. P. C. Dean, Honorary Secretary to Board. This shows, shortly, the position in which this Board has been placed, and is ever being placed, owing to the action of the Government in depriving the Board of its jurisdiction. When Mr. Larnach's Proclamation was issued the Board expended a considerable sum of money in repairing the wharves up the rivers. The control was taken away under a subsequent Proclamation. The money, of course, has never been refunded. 6. Colonel Eraser.] The Proclamation of 1874 and Mr. Fisher's Proclamation—are they identically worded ? —No. 7. Mr. Rhodes.] I think you had better put the financial position of the Board. What I should like to know something about is, what power you have of collecting revenue from the whole of this [indicating on plan]—whether there is any limit to your charges up the river. Mr. Brodie : We cannot collect any revenue at all. Mr. Rhodes : Practically, you say you ought to have power. I should like to know whether you hold that your right to charge should be unlimited or limited. Mr. Bagnall: There is no limit by the Act. Mr. Carpenter : A by-law was passed in December, 1883, called By-law No. 5. This, I may say, was agreed to by Mr. Bagnall, who was, I think, then Chairman of the Board—were you not ? Mr. Bagnall: No. Mr. Carpenter : Colonel Fraser was then Chairman. At a meeting of the Board held on the 10th December, 1883, there were present Colonel Fraser, Mr. Bagnall, Mr. J. Reid (who represented the timber industry also), and at that meeting By-law No. 5 was passed, which provided for the collection of certain timber wharfages up to the point I have described as coming within the supposed boundaries of 1874 —that is, taking in the Turua and Blair and Gillespie's mills. In 1887 or 1888, after Mr. Larnach's Proclamation was gazetted, a new by-law was passed, called By-law No. 10, in which it is provided that wharfage dues on timber shall be Is. 6d. The intention of the Board at that time, I may say, was not to collect Is. 6d., except in this form : one shilling of that was to be refunded to be used in repairs to the wharves. This was deemed to be too high a charge, and was considered to be a very cumbrous and roundabout way of effecting its end. At a special meeting of the Board held the following year —1888—the by-law was amended in this form—and I wish to put particular stress upon this amended by-law, No. 11, knowing what statements have been made in reference to this matter. It says: '' On and after the coming in force of this by-law the following words shall be added to section 2, By-law 10—For every I,oooft. of sawn kahikatea timber, 4d. ; for every I,oooft. of sawn kauri timber landed or shipped south of Opani Point, Bd. ; for every I,oooft. of sawn kauri timber landed or shipped north of Opani Point, Is." —this money being all returned to the Kauri Timber Company under an arrangement for repairs to the wharf (i.e., wharfage paid by company on timber cut and shipped south of Opani Point). Perhaps I ought to put in a copy of the new by-law that has been prepared. I think that ought to come in in this inquiry. This new by-law is now lying at the Harbour Board's Office to be examined. It really means bringing down kahikatea timber to 3d. per I,oooft. [New by-law put in.] That is the position in regard to our right to levy dues. We are satisfied with this Bill as introduced by the Government. 8. Mr. Rhodes.] Was there any port before that original Proclamation in 1874? —There what was called the Port of Shortland.

IT.—7

4

Mr. Bagnall ; The Proclamation was dated 20th November, 1868, and that defined the Port of Shortland. 9. Mr. Rhodes.] In this inquiry there are no claims as to filling up the river ?—Not in connection with this inquiry. That is a matter we have to deal with afterwards. 10. I only want to know whether the Harbour Board thinks they have any ground of complaint as to that matter. —Wherever a harbour takes in a portion of a river, and if in that river certain logs, or debris of any kind, comes down, naturally the Harbour Board would have some claim ; but we have no special cause of complaint at the present time. 11. Mr. Bagnall.] What is meant by the Port of Shortland ? What would you understand by such a question.' —The boundaries of the Port of Shortland are not before us. There is no description of boundaries before us. 12. What particular place do you think the Proclamation referred to? What do you understand by Shortland ?- -When the township was first formed here it was laid out near the Kauaeranga Stream, and was designated Shortland. The so-called port or harbour was called the Harbour of Shortland at that time, I think. It was a name, that was all, and tho seaward boundary was four miles radius from Opani Point. The name was given because that happened to be the principallypopulated place at tho time. If it had been intended to define the boundary of the harbour as from Shortland—from the mouth of the Shortland Creek or River—the boundary would have started from there, and not from Opani Point. The very fact of making the central point of the circle at Opani Point shows that it was-intended to cover a portion of the Waihou River. If it were intended to define simply the Port of Shortland, the arc of the circle would have been described from there [indicating on plan]. At that time, it must be remembered, the river was not so free to Europeans as it is now. Mr. Bagnall examined. Mr. Brodie : I will draw your attention to " The Marine Act, 1867," and the definition of the word " port," in section 3. It says, " ' Port' shall extend to and include any port, harbour, or haven, or navigable creek or river, or lake, or inland water within the limits defined for such port." The contention of the Board is that in the original Proclamation tho seaward limits were described by an arc of a circle, and there was no necessity to describe the inner limits. You may see great trees which have been cut down and enormous roots which have been brought down in the stream, and you will see hundreds of stumps impeding the navigation ; and near Bagnall's you will find an enormous quantity of sawdust. Mr. Bagnall: No. Mr. Brodie: I believe steps were taken to remove some of it, but not until a great deal of trouble had been taken by the Harbourmaster. Large quantities of land were allowed to go into the river, and sand-banks were formed where there were none before. On these grounds, the Board should have the control of the river. Mr. Bagnall: I would like to say, at the outset, Mr. Rhodes, that the residents on the Waihou River look upon this matter as one of very considerable importance, not only involving the present charges that may be levied upon the people there, but fixing that which will go on for all time to come ; and we think that it is the duty of the Government to look at the whole matter in a fair and proper light, taking into account all that has gone before, and not place us in an unfair and improper position. Now, to begin with, I will recite the history of the Thames Harbour Board, and that from the beginning. Mr. Carpenter has not stated all the facts, and I think all the facts should be known. We have not had the Proclamation of 1868, but you said you would be able to see that. Mr. Rhodes : I will see it. Mr. Bagnall: It is a Proclamation which fixes the limits of some thirty or forty harbours in NewZealand at that time, including Auckland, Wellington, Port Chalmers, Lyttelton, Napier, Gisborne, and a whole list of them, and amongst others is the Port of Shortland; and it says, with regard to the Port of Shortland, " The seaward limit of the Port of Shortland is a radius of four nautic miles from Opani Point." This is the Kauaeranga River [indicating on plan], and on the bank, near the mouth, is the Town of Shortland. The goldfield was discovered in 1867, and it was a port at that time. In 18G8, when the Proclamation was issued, it was then known as the Port of Shortland. I do not think Mr. Carpenter's contention as to the meaning of " seaward limits " will bear investigation at all. It is cleat ly intended that seaward limit was (hat portion which was towards the sea. In proof of that, if you will look at the other Proclamations in 1868 you will see that the seaward limit of the Port of Wellington is set out there as a circle with a radius of three nautic miles from a rock known as Barrett's Reef, at the entrance to Wellington, and if you make a circle and only include three miles you will leave out the wharves and all the principal part of the Port of Wellington. That, to my mind, is clear proof that the seaward limit was never intended to be the actual limit to the port. Mr. Brodie : What about the Auckland limits ? Mr. Bagnall: lam not quite sure what that was. I think the original Proclamation in regard to Auckland was a circle from Rangitoto, which has since been altered, and the present boundaries of the Auckland Harbour are fixed by definite lines. [Described boundaries according to Proclamation.] In every one of the descriptions of harbour boundaries you will find that the seaward limit was only intended to extend to the sea. The Proclamation of 1874 still continues to define the Port of Shortland. It is still the same port which was defined in .1868 and 1874, with this difference, that the name was altered. It says here, "I do further order that the port thus defined shall hereafter be called the Port of Thames." Altering the name does not alter the port, and what was the Port of Shortland in 1868 was altered to the Port of Thames in 1874. In 1867, when the Proclamation was issued, this was the outlet [indicating on plan]. There were no people living up in this direction. I do not think that these other navigable rivers, which are the outlet of large districts beyond, were intended to be included within the limits of the Port of Shortland. These are separate ports, separate harbours forming outlets for separate districts, which are now peopled by different people with separate interests, and who have no right to be under the control of

5

H.—7

people living to the north of the Port of Shortland and of tho Kauaeranga River. If you look into the constitution of the Thames Harbour Board you will see that its representation includes only the territory to the north of the Kauaeranga River. People living to the south of the river are not represented on the Board. Mr. Brodie : When the Board was constituted Ohinomuri was almost a foreign country, as far as we were concerned. Mr. Bagnall: I grant all that—that these places were not peopled at that time, and what we contend is-that these districts, which are peopled now, should not be placed under the control of people living entirely away from us, whose interests are not our interests, and who wish to get revenue from us to spend for their benefit. Up till 1877 the harbour was under the control of the Government, and wharves were erected by the Government at Shortland, at the goods-wharf at Grahamstown, and at the time the Harbour Board was formed these wharves were handed over free of charge to the Board. 13. Mr. Rhodes.] In Shortland were any dues collected up the river? Did you ship up there at all ? Were dues collected by the Government'? —Yes, up to about here [indicating on plan], as far as it was navigable, where the bridge is now. I admit that the Kauaeranga is the port referred to as the Port of Shortland, and, seeing that the landward boundary is not marked, that it went up as far as the river was navigable. These wharves were constructed by the Government, and handed over to the Harbour Board, and also the foreshore, a large area, —I think some two hundred acres from the mouth of the Kauaeranga Creek northwards, —was all handed over as an endowment to the Board, and for some time after the Board was constituted no charges were levied in any way upon the river. Mr. Brodie : No pilot charges ? Mr. Bagnall: lam speaking of wharfage charges. No wharfage charges were levied in the Waihou River during the whole time the Government had control of the harbour, and for some years afterwards ; and all the wharves were erected by the owners of property along the river. When tho Harbour Board passed a by-law to collect dues upon the river, it was understood that the boundary of the port was a circle with a radius of five nautic miles. This was understood by the Board to be their boundary, and I have no doubt they believed that was the boundary at the time that it was handed over to them. At the time of Mr. Larnach's Proclamation, which included nearly forty miles up the river, these rivers were all included within the jurisdiction of the Port of Thames, and could be levied upon by people living in Shortland and Grahamstown. As soon as that was done, a great outcry was raised. The consequence was that Mr. Fisher came here and held an inquiry. Ido not think Mr. Carpenter has stated the thing fairly. The result of Mr. Fisher's inquiry was that he was satisfied that no portion of either the W T aihou or Piako Rivers should have been included within the limits of the Port of Thames, and the Proclamation issued by him went in that direction. The Board then made representations to the Government, and the limits were again restored to the position in which they stood under the Proclamation in 1874, which says—" The seaward limits of the Port of Thames shall be a circle of five nautic miles radius from Opani Point." It seems to me that a great deal of unnecessary stress has been laid upon that point. If the Board really has any claim according to the law, they should not limit their claim to five miles up the river. My contention is this : that, as the Act stands, if they have a right to go into the river at all, they have a right to go as far as the river is navigable. My contention is that the five-mile radius has nothing to do with the river limit in any shape whatever, and no one who understands the English language, and who looks at the matter fairly, will say that it can mean anything else—that the seaward limit is the limit toward the sea, and that it is a mistake stating that it should be a circle instead of an tire of a circle. The points that we claim are these: That the original Proclamation was for the Port of Shortland; that the Port of Shortland is limited to the Kauaeranga River; that when the alteration of tho name was made it did not alter the port; that it is still the Port of Shortland, and that the Waihou or Piako Rivers never should have been included in these Proclamations at the time the port was handed over to the control of the people of the Thames. It is unreasonable to suppose that the control would have been handed over to people living north of this river, and that they should be empowered to claim dues, and have control of rivers running miles and miles up into the country. 1 do not think that is the case in any other part of the world, and it is not right that it should be allowed to exist at the Thames. At the time the Board claimed dues we, as law-abiding citizens, agreed to pay, believing that the Board had a right to do what they claimed to do. It was not until after we investigated the matter and found that the Board had uo right to do what they claimed to do that we refused to pay, and since have refused to pay, because we did not consider that we had any right to pay. We built our own wharves and looked after our affairs entirely, so far as the wharves and rivers were concerned : and the money was being taken from us and expended down here. 14. Mr. Rhodes.] What amount have you contributed that has been spent down here?—l could not say exactly, but upwards of £100; but nothing has been done for our wharves. 15. Your wharves have been built by yourselves ?—Yes, and maintained by ourselves. 16. What was the cost, roughly speaking?—£so a year; that might keep the wharves in repair. With regard to the financial question, and tho matter of security, and the nature of the representations made to the bondholders, the representations made to the bondholders were that they had security over all the revenues and rents accruing to tho Harbour Board. Nothing was said as to the limits of the port, or anything of that kind. The original loan was for £6,000, of which the friendly societies lent £2,600. It has been frequently alluded to as if the friendly societies lent the whole of the money. As to the reasons given by Mr. Brodie why the residents of the Thames should have control of these rivers, he spoko about the sawdust, and snags in the river. At the time when the notice was sent by the Marine Department to cease putting sawdust in the river we did so. The Harbourmaster can bear me out in that, We ceased, and I believe the other

H.—7

6

millowners did so too. With regard to snags, under the Timber Floatage Act persons may float timber down creeks into tho river. It is impossible to prevent snags being driven into the river, and all that can be done is to secure the snags when they do get into the river. As to the drainage, those who have properties on the banks of a river have the right to drain their property into tho natural outlets and rivers; and they have to see that proper steps are taken to prevent damage being done. At all events, it would be an absurd thing to suppose that a Harbour Board should prevent people from draining their property because certain things come down. Mr. Brodie : I am told that a hundred acres of land has come into the river. Mr. Bagnall : That is not so. Even supposing we admit that these things are difficulties, I ask is the Thames Harbour Board the proper authority to have control ? I ask you to look at the foreshore of the town and see how the mining refuse is allowed to silt up round the wharf. Whereas the " Rotomahana " could easily get in to the wharf some years ago, she can hardly get in now. If the Board allow their own immediate locality to be filled up, what can be expected of their control in more distant places? With regard to the boundaries set out in the Act, and the alteration that was made, copies of the Bill were sent to the Thames Harbour Board for the purpose of being distributed amongst those interested in the matter. Instead of being distributed they were secretly given to the members of the Board : they were not to be shown outside, and the newspapers were given instructions that they were not to publish them. That lam prepared to prove. But as soon as the people living up the country saw that it was proposed to include them within the Bill, then action was taken to try to prevent it. The wish of the people up the river was to try to revert to the Proclamation issued by Mr. Fisher, excluding all the river from the operation of the Act. But, as the harbour and foreshore here were silting up so fast, with the view of giving the people here an opportunity of coining to deep water, it was agreed that a portion of the river should be included, giving them deep water as far as the Kopu Wharf. The Government agreed to make that alteration in the Bill, but by some oversight the description in the schedule did not agree with the plan. There is a strong feeling among the up-river people against the Port of Thames coming even that far up the river [indicating on plan], because they do not consider that the people living to the north of the Kauaeranga River should-have control of any portion of the Waihou River. 17. Mr. Rhodes.] All your communication, I suppose, comes through the Thames, except shipping timber away? —No; we communicate straight with Auckland. There is a steamer running twice a week to Auckland. 18. Who has control of this part of the river [indicating on plaiij ? —The Marine Department. The river a little higher up than is shown on this plan is within the limits of the Thames County, but that body has not been declared a River Board. 19. What is the population within these limits ? —There are several settlers living there [indicating on plan], and there is a very considerable population there [indicating on plan] of Europeans and Maoris. There are three hotels there also. 20. Mr. Brodie] That is about the population?—No; there are a good many settlers there besides. Mr. Rhodes : I think I had better go and see the river. Mr. Bag mi 11: I would strongly recommend you to go up and see the river. There are several country settlers present who are prepared to give evidence. Mr. Brodie : Mr. Bagnall has laid great stress upon the Board collecting money from Turua and spending it here. W T e at the Thames object to the Government collecting money here and spending it -at Wellington, but somebody must collect and spend the money, so that that is no argument at all. 21. Mr. Rhodes.] I would like to know how the loans were expended ?—I can explain as to the £6,000. That was expended upon the Shortland Wharf, the goods wharf, reclamation works along the foreshore, and a portion on the Kopu Wharf. 22. Colonel Fraser. Was nothing spent to show the navigation of the river?—No; that came out of the ordinary revenue of the Board. Mr. Brodie : A portion of the loan has been spent in trying to prevent silting. 23. Colonel Eraser.] Are you not aware that the up-country settlers have a River Board, wdiose jurisdiction extends down to the junction of the Hikutaia River ?—Yes. 24. And there is no control at present between this portion [portion indicated] of the river and that portion?— No. 25. You stated that the Port of Thames was the same as the Port of Shortland—that only the name was changed. Are you not aware that when the Port of Shortland was converted into the Port of Thames the boundaries were increased ?—Yes ; we understood that. 26. You were a member of the Harbour Board when this loan was raised?— When the £6,000 loan was raised. 27. And of that sum £2,600 was lent by the friendly societies?— Yes. 28. And you were a trustee of one of the lodges at the time?— Yes. 29. And you were paying your dues at the time without any demur ?—At the time the loan was raised we were not paying any dues. 30. \Vhen did you stop paying dues ?—ln 1887, I think it was. 31. After you ceased to be a member of the Board?— No. 32. Mr. Rhodes.] Could you give us the exact dates dues were paid up the river ?—We paid no dues until long after the loan was raised. 33. Colonel Fraser.] The people who are between the two points principally consist of Messrs. Bagnall, at one mill, and the Kauri Timber Company at the other. They are the bulk of the population. These are the people who are charged dues, and who now object to pay them ?—There are others besides. Mr. Earl is one, but he is ill and not able to be present to-day. A cutter landed some sheep on his own land on the bank of tho river, and he was charged wharfage. 34. Did he pay ?—No, but he was charged. He has paid dues too,

7

H.—7

35. Mr. Brodie.) What a state of confusion there would be if every one were allowed to erect private wharves. Do you not think somebody should have control ? —Yes; but not the Thames Harbour Board. the people there ask is that there should be the same control as there is elsewhere. 36. Mr. Carpenter.) How many people are there on the banks of the river within the five-mile radius saving the owners and employes of the mills?—On that side of the river there are Messrs. Earl and McCowatt, besides about twenty Natives. There is a considerable area of Native land, which will some day be taken up and occupied. It would place all the land at a great disadvantage. On the other side of the river there are a good number of people living besides the employes at the mills. •'l7. Mr. Wood.] Without the assistance of the buoys and beacons would vessels be able to go into the river ?—There are natural marks which would lead vessels into the river without the assistance of buoys and beacons. The river can be used, and has been used, without the buoys and beacons. Mr. Brodie : There is one point that has been omitted. The Government went to considerable expense m bringing Sir John Coode here to inquire into the best place for a harbour, and Sir John Coode, in his report, says that Kopu is the best place for a harbour, and that is inside tho river; so that it is important to the Thames people that the river should be kept free from snags, iv.c. Mr. Cassrclls (of Ohinemuri) said the settlors up tho river sent their produce to market by the river. They did not want any hindrances put in their way by a Harbour Board. The settlers traded direct with Auckland. All that they wanted was to have free-trade. The machinery which had gone up could never have been taken there unless they had had free-trade. Mr. Rhodes : Did the Thames Harbour Board charge you? Mr. Cassrells : They did charge us, but not since we have become a River Board. It would be an injustice to tax us. We are taxed quite enough without such extra charges. Each side of the river might govern itself. Mr. Rhodes : As far as I understand, the Harbour Board have no intention of charging you as long as you have a Board there. Mr. Bagnall: They have the power to charge, and they do make a light charge. The Board even tried to compel the up-country settlers to take their powder from the magazine at the Thames instead of from Auckland, as some of the settlers desired to do. Mr. Rhodes : You cannot go into the river without going through the harbour, uo matter where the Government fixes the boundaries. Mr. McGowo.il : Did you make any objection to the payment of these dues until Mr. Larnach's Proclamation appeared ? Mr. Bagnall: We always contended that the payment of these dues was an injustice, but we did not refuse to pay, believing the Board had power to compel us to pay. Mr. Bayldon, Harbourmaster, examined. 38. Mr. Rhodes.] Can you state when the dues were paid?— The by-law came into force, as near as I can recollect, in 1888, and from that date to 1886 the dues were regularly paid. Mr. Bagnall .- And the loan was raised in 1881. Mr. Jlauldou: As far as 1 can recollect, Messrs. Reid and Bagnall were members of the Board, and agreed to that impost being put upon them. Mr. Bagnall : We admit that. Mr. Baijlilon : The following is a description of the boundaries at various ports throughout the colony: "'Marine Act, 1867.'— New Zealand Gazette of the 23rd November, 1868, No. 66. — Sir George Bowen, Governor. —Shortland : A circle of four nautic miles radius from Opani Point. Auckland : A straight line from the east head of the Tamaki River to the south-east point of Motutapu Island, and a straight line west (true) from Rangitoto Reef to the opposite shore. Wellington : A circle of three nautic miles radius from the outer rock of Barrett's Reef. Lyttelton : A circle of five nautic miles radius from Baleino Point. Dunedin : A circle of five nautic miles radius from Taiaroa Heads Lighthouse. Bluff Harbour : A circle of three nautic miles radius from the flagstaff on Starling Point. Invercargill or New River : A circle of three nautic miles radius from the outer leading beacon." Mr. Gillespie (Kauri Timber Company) said tho company had been promised a considerable allowance for rebate in connection with their wharf, but instead of getting a rebate they had been charged a great deal more. :■'>'.). Mr. Brodie to Mr. Bay Hon.] It is the case that Sir John Coode canto here to report on tho harbour on behalf of the Government ?—Yes. 40. His report was to the effect that the most suitable place lor a harbour was at the mouth of the Thames River, somewhere in the vicinity of Te Kopu. That was about 1883 or 1884. You are aware that large drains have been cut down to the river to drain settlors' property there ?—Yes. 41. And due precaution was not taken by the people to prevent an unnecessary quantity of stuff getting into the river?—A large quantity got in at the time. 42. At Roche's place, near Te Aroha, have you any idea of the quantity of sand and land which came into the river ? Wherever drainage operations are undertaken, and proper precautions are not taken, large quantities of stuff come down into the harbour ?—Yes. 43. Where timber-driving is carried on some people take steps to prevent stumps coming down ?—Yes, some precautions. 44. But, notwithstanding that, logs have found their way into tho river, and some of them have come down to the harbour?— They certainly come down tho river. 45. In your capacity as Harbourmaster you have had to call the attention of some millowners to the fact of their placing sawdust in the river?— Yes, in days gone by.

H—7

8

46. You think the Board should have the power to stop the placing of sawdust, &c, in the river, to prevent the silting-up of the harbour?— Yes, undoubtedly I do. , 47. Mr. Bagnall. What could the settlers do in the matter of drains lo prevent what you speak of ?—I am not prepared to say, because Ido not know that the matter could be obviated much. 48. You do not think the Harbour Board could do any tiling? 49. Mr. Brodie : Could they prevent ignorant men from putting drains in the wrong place, and compel them to put the drains in such places that the stuff would not be washed into the river?— I think so. 50. Mr. Bagnall: Unless the Harbour Board limits were extended beyond where they are now they would not have the power ? —The Marine Department would. 51. These logs coming down the river, what could the Board do to prevent them coming down. —It would have the power to compel those who sent them down to the river to remove them. 52. Mr. Rhodes : The people living in this district [indicated on plan] have no representative on the Board ? .1//. Brodie : 11 they pay rates they have. The Thames County has three members on the Board. Mr. Wood (a member of the Harbour Board) : 1 have been a member of the Board for some five or six years, and consequently I am aware of all the transactions which have taken place since the first extension of the boundary by Mr. Larnach, and also when the boundaries were curtailed by Mr. Fisher. Prior to Mr. Larnach extending the boundaries I and other members of the Board went up the river with him. What Mr. Larnach saw at that time convinced him that the river had been spoiled by the trees and sawdust which had been thrown into it by the millowners. Ho was convinced that some body should have power to prevent these things. Previous to that Mr. Bagnall had been approached, and he never would cease throwing his sawdust into the river. A body like the Thames Harbour Board was too small a body for Mr. Bagnall to take any notice of. Parliament was approached, and Mr. Larnach extended the boundaries. Then the question of finance, came in. The then secretary pointed out that we could not meet our liabilities. The Board raised the tariff from Is. to Is. 6d., and it included timber all round. How tho charge came to be raised to Is. 6d. was this : Mr. Stone, the owner of the Shortland sawmill, said, " If the other mills are willing to pay Is. (id. per thousand, lam willing to pay Is. 6d. also." Mr. Stone ai that time paid Is., whereas Bagnall and Blair only paid 3d. The charge was then raised to Ls. 6d. A deputation of the millowners waited on the Board and said that the increase was too much. We were willing to reduce it to (id.—that is. allow a rebate of Ls. It was only then that Mr. Bagnall contended that the Board had no right lo charge at all. This Board has a liability, and Mr. Bagnall was Chairman of the Board when the liability of £6,000 was incurred. That has to be paid, and I do not think it is fair that he should now throw obstacles in the way of the Board collecting the money. What can the Board do, if it loses a portion of its revenue? It would be an injustice to the people who lent the money. As far as lam aware, we could not meet our liabilities and coupons and effect repairs to the wharves, &c. The Hoard is curtailing expenses as much as possible, but we cannot meet our engagements if a portion of our revenue is taken away. The upriver people have really no grievance. Mr. Bagnall tried to make Turua a little district for himself, with a harbour for himself, and I suppose they are going to set up a little government for themselves. How Mr. Bagnall can say Turua is not a portion of the Thames Harbour is a mystery. They have to pass through our harbour. Ido not think the Commission should do anything which would hamper the Board keeping faith with our creditors, who advanced the money on the boundaries then in existence. Mr. McGoivan : The whole of those who are now objecting to paying dues paid for a certain time. Mr. Rhodes : What is the output from these mills ? Mr. Bagnall: About 40,000 ft. a week. Mr. Bayldon : When this extension was first granted my instructions were to proceed up the river and see what was necessary in the way of repairing wharves, &c. I made a report on tho subject to the Board. Mr. Bagnall : The first notice we got about sawdust in the river was from the Marine Department, and since that steps have boon taken in the matter. lam surprised that any one who knows tho position so well as "Mr. Wood does should have made the statement he did in regard to the Board and its liabilities. The Board could not meet the demands made by the late secretary : that was the trouble. It was the demands made by the late secretary which caused tho increase of rates. As a matter of fact, since the late secretary has gone out the Board has been in a position to meet its liabilities, and it has got a credit balance at tho present time. The Board is in a position to meet its liabilities and coupons. The real trouble was the frauds which were perpetrated by the late secretary. Mr. Brodie : I say the Board are not in a position to meet their engagements. There arc £10,000 of debentures to be met, and there is not a sinking fund to meet those engagements. Mr. Bagnall: They are just in as good a position to meet them as the colony is. It has been said that I was Chairman when the liability of £6,000 was incurred. At that time there was an overdraft of £4,000 at the bank and a promissory note for £1,000. I was not one of the members who signed that note. The £6,000 raised was for the purpose of paying off an overdraft for which six members of the Board were personally liable. When I left the Board there was a considerable sum in the bank to the credit of the Board. Colonel Eraser : The contention of Mr. Bagnall is that they have no right to go up tho river. If they have no right to go up the river they have no right to go up as far as they have. Mr. McAndrciv (Chairman of the Harbour Board) : It has apparently been found out, after many years, that the description in the Proclamation of 1874 was not properly defined. To rectify

9

H.—7

that the Bill of last session was introduced. The Government made a mistake: they gave us an Act under which we cannot claim rates. We wish to be able to collect those rates. Failing that —as has been pointed out —we shall not be able to carry on. Mr. Bagnall says we have a surplus. That has only been got by cheeseparing and cutting down expenses in every way to meet our liabilities; in fact, we are allowing our wharves to go completely to ruin. We ought to have some thousands of pounds to put us in a decent position. It appears to me that this matter simply means that Mr. Bagnall wants to get out of paying his rates. A number of persons got notice to come to this inquiry to give evidence why the boundaries should not be extended. Mr. Rhodes : Mr. Bagnall may be here to represent their views as well as his own. Mr. McAndrew : Mr. Bagnall has been a member of the Board for a number of years, and he was a party to the expenditure of thousands of pounds upon various works which are of little or no benefit to the harbour. Mr. Bagnall: I was opposed to some of the expenditure. Mr. Rhodes: It cannot affect the question as to what should be the limits of the harbour in future. Mr. MeAndrew : It certainly seems to me that it is a question of " Tax anybody but me." Mr. Gillespie: It is not a personal matter on Mr. Bagnall's part, because I am at one with him, and I represent a different interest. Mr. McAndrew : Mr. Bagnall has sat on the Board, and has paid his dues for a great number of years. Mr. Bagnall: Three years. Mr. McAndrew : The dues were collected during that time, and without any protest. The loan-money was borrowed from the friendly societies. I happened to be a member of one society, and I remember as well as yesterday the representations that were made to that society. Curtailing the district simply means taking away a portion of the securities which the lenders have for the repayment of their money. I consider that it will be a great injustice to the Board if the district is curtailed. It is only by cheeseparing that we are able to carry on. Our wharves are going to ruin, and the s.s. " Rotomahana " will soon be unable to come to the wharf. Mr. Brodie : Although the County Council is empowered to elect three members on the Board for certain ridings, yet they have not been bound by that arrangement, for they have elected representatives outside those ridings. Mr. Bagnall : The Road Boards used to elect those members, but upon the Road Boards being merged into the county the county elected. The ridings are not out of existence that formerly constituted those Road Boards, and it seems to me that they would be entitled to claim that their representatives should be elected on the Board. Ido not think there is anything in the Act on the matter. Mr. Rhodes then proceeded to view the Waihou River and adjacent country. The inquiry then concluded. In the evening Mr. Townsend, a settler residing on the bank of the Waihou River, called on Mr. Rhodes and stated his view of the case. He wished to have the river kept clear of snags, &c, and the responsibility for doing that put upon some local body. [Approximate Coat of Paper.— Preparation, nil; printing (1,585 copies), £5 18s. Gd.]

By Authority: Geobgk Didshury, Government Printer, Wellington.—lB9o.

2—H. 7.