The County Council and the Harbor Question.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 186, 23 August 1888, Page 3

The County Council and the Harbor Question.

A meeting of the County Council was held on Tuesday afternoon, to take into consideration the question of the harbor crisis, as affecting the County. There were present: Councillors Clark (Chairman), Stubbs, Coleman, Orr, Twohey, and Wethered. The Chairman explained the object of the meeting, remarking that they all knew the position of affairs. Mr Sievwright (the Chairman of the Harbor Board) had kindly attended, though he did not know that they required any more information than they had. Cr Twohey said it was as well to hear if Mr Sievwright had anything to say, as it might refresh their memories. Mr Sievwright said he had just seen a telegram from Wellington to the effect that the Premier had put the Bill down on the notice paper for that day, and apparently the intention was to pass it through all the stages as rapidly as possible, and he looked upon it as a hopeful sign that the Bill would be carried through altogether. At the same time an expression of sympathy might strengthen the hands of the Harbor Board. It was very important that the message should be got through Parliament, and anything they could do to assist it would be desirable. The Chairman : The Government seem to me to have now taken a step which, if taken a few weeks ago, would have saved all trouble. Mr Sievwright : Well, the Government are very much harassed, and it was a great difficulty to get the Premier to touch anything. He seems to have done it now as the matter has become so urgent. The Chairman : To a great extent it does away with our interfering in the matter, but an expression of opinion would be no harm. Mr Sievwright: It must be kept in mind that, the Council is the representative body of a large number of ratepayers. Cr Stubbs remarked that they represented the country settlers. The Chairman: We must either give the Board our support or go against the continuation of the works.

Mr Sievwright: The whole question is whether the works shall be stopped or gone on with. Mr Stubbs: I do not think the mere fact of the Government promising to take up the Bill does absolve us from the necessity of strengthening the hands of the Harbor Board as far as we can—the stronger the expression of opinion the better, provided it is given in a fair and reasonable manner. Mr Coleman thought that the following resolution would meet with the views of the Council, and he would therefore propose it—- ** That this Council is desirous of representing to the Government the great loss and injury that must result to the district through the stoppage of the Gisborne harbor works, and would urge the necestity for immediate legislation, enabling the Harbour Board to expend a further sum of £40,000 as mentioned in clause 5 of the recommendations of the Gisborne Harbour Bill Committee, but without giving effect to the first four clauses of the said recommendations.” No doubt all the Councillors were weU acquainted with the recommendations made by the Committee. Beyond the limitation of the rating area he found no fault with the recommendations. He believed it was the opinion of most people that they could spend the £40,000 without incurring any extra taxation. He did not think it fair to the bondholders to meddle with the revenue in this way. The Government having taken up the Bill and shown their desire to push it through, it would be folly on the part of the Council to take up an antagonistic position, though no doubt they had plenty of reason to complain at the way they had been treated ; but there was no good taking up that point now. Mr Stubbs seconded. He did not approve of the recommendation to take a poll—a poll had been taken and he did not believe if another were taken to-morrow it would alter the matter. The statement in clause 4, that the work would be only of use to those within the prescribed raduis was simply nonsense. He quite agreed in the fairness of not rating the property north of Tologa, but that was not the question. The settlers up to Maungatikapua would receive equal benefit with the townspeople who had to pay much : heavier rates. In fact they would receive more benefit, as most of the large wool-growers export more in bulk or import more than do those in town, and the harbor was made to facilitate shipping. Whoever drew up the Committee’s report showed a great want of knowledge of the district. The Chairman and Mr Orr expressed approval of the resolution. Cr Twohey : That won’t make any increase on the present rate ? The Chairman :We consider not; we consider we will be able to spend the £40,000 without increasing the rate. Isn’t that so Mr Sievwright ? Mr Sievwright: Yes, the Board resolved unanimously that it would not spend’more than what could be met by the present rate. The Committee would not take into consideration any prospective revenue and wanted to know what we could actually show. Of course we could not show practically much of the revenue until the works were completed. The works in their present state are of no use.

Mr Clark said as ratepayers they were unanimous in wanting to see something for their money. They did not wish to see £60,000 or £70,000 spent without having any return, but would prefer to spend more and make the works reproductive. Mr Stubbs said it was a most arbitrary thing for the Legislature to do to fix the radius. It was evident the Committee knew nothing about the district. Mr Clark thought some of them had a good deal of knowledge of the place, but they had got their knowledge from one or two persons who had influenced them. Cr Coleman thought the Tologa and Waiapu riding should be exempted, but it was not for them to suggest it. The motion was unanimously agreed to. It was decided to telegraph the resolution to the member for the district.