THE HARBOR ENDOWMENT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 350, 12 September 1889, Page 3

THE HARBOR ENDOWMENT.

A NEW DEPARTUBE. At the meeting of the Harbor Biard on Tuesday night Mr Sievwright presented the petition of a number of ratepayers, who protested against the method by which the Board proposed to deal with the Tauwhareparae block, the harbor endowment. The following signatures were attached to the petition :—W. L. File, D. A. McLeod, J. Warren.P. McFarlane, T. Adams, J. Craig, T. J. Dickson, A. Kempthorne. Hy. McKay, A. J. Cooper. J. Rosie. P. E. Richardson, D. Rougher, A. Barber, W. Stephenson, Ewen Cameron, W, E.Akroyd.B. Sherriff, J. Finlay, C. C Lucas, V. G, Day, H, M. Porter, H. J. Finn, F,- Tietgen, J. Allen, J. Adeane, J. Sandlant, 8. Stevenson, F, 8011, P. E. Milne, 0. Veale, senr., J, Richardson, J, Pierce, P. Malone, H, Moree, L. Mclntosh, Currie and Hogan. E. Devery, M. Boland, R. Poulgrain, W, B. Ball, F. Goldsmith, 0. Young, T. H. Pardoe, B. M. Steggall; T. Corcoran, A. Brown, C, Rice, C. Anderson, A. Parsons, J. Cooper. B. Colebrook, J. Hyland, J. M Smith, T. Cahill, J. Candy, W. E. Cooper, M. Hall, G. Bruce, Hy. U'Ben, W. Benson, Wells, W. Law, J. Walters, C. J. Shaw, 0. Gray, P. Breingan, H. Williams, H. Bruce, R. Mcßretney, W. Morgan, G. Robb, H, Cannon, J. Sigley. W. Brown, A. B. Newman, S. Doleman, H, Hamblett, A, Taylor. The Chairman said the question was whether they could now alter what had been done. Mr Bennett thereupon rose and moved that the petition be rescinded, and that the petitioners be informed that the Board does not feel inclined to depart from the position already taken up. The petition had now been trying to get signatures for six weeks, and only 77 names had been got, which spoke for themselves. In the town not a single person who was a large ratepayer had signed, and in the country only four large ratepayers had signed. It was right to assume that those who had not signed agreed with the action ths Board had taken, and the petition was not, he considered, sufiloient to cause them to alter what they had decided upon, Dr Pollen said he had not signed the petition and ha was against tbs action taken. r There was no seconder to the motion, s Mr Sievwright considered the petition was entitled to be dealt with in a different way to that suggested, He proposed that the block be withdrawn irom offer of lease at present, and that the wishes of the ratepayers be given effect to at an early date. It did not follow that because many ratepayers had not signed the petition that they did not agree with it. They all knew that petitions were not sought sat for signature, the people who sign generally having the petition carried to them, go (far as he was aware there had been no effort of any kind made to secure signatures for this petition; the only assistance it had was that it had been published, and apparently all those who had signed bad done SO voluntarily. Mr Bennett's argument that no large ratepayers had signed was not conclusive, because the great bulk of the rates came from the small ratepayers. Nor was he prepared to assume that there were no large ratepayers there, for he believed there were some substantial ones ; but that was not the question. He thought the arguments used were such that the Board should not ignore them. Even though they had taken up a certain line they should always be amenable to reason, and as better views had been put before them it was their duty to give effect to them. On the other hand the Board was only entitled to assume that there was opposition to the memorial on Buch opposition being expressed. [Mr Bennett: No, no.] The petition was signed by a substantial body of ratepayers, and was deserving otcareful consideration. Nothing definite had been said about the areas. He thought the motion he proposed was a reasonable one, that they should not hurry the thing, and try to save the property of the ratepayers from the risk—“ that the interests of the present generation ought not to be sacrificed by leasing the property in the least advantageous manner.” If it turned out that they could not lease the block otherwise than as had been proposed it was then time enough to think of doing it in that way; but he believed it could, and they should take the matter, Bennett rose to a point of order, and contended that the motion could not be put until the previous resolution had been rescinded. Dr Pollen pointed out that the motion was not seconded, and Mr Townley said he would second it.

Mr Bennett said £6O or £7O had already Feen spent in advertising the block for lease, 1 he also pointed out that the previous > Violation had been passed at a full meeting of the Board, while there were then only five members present. The Chairman ruled that the motion could not be taken, but he thought it might be put in a way that the matter could be postponed, to allow any other action in the meantime. Dr Pollen suggested that Mr Sievwright should agree to a motion which he proposed, that the petition be received and its consideration be postponed until after the tenders had been received. He thought it was a thing they ought to postpone. He disagreed with Mr Bennett’s view, and considered that if the petition contained only a dozen signatures it should be considered. But though he was opposed to the resolution the Board had made previous to his becoming a member, that had been done after much discussion, and he did not think a small meeting like the present one should take upon itself to upset it. The petition had been brought before them quite unexpectedly, and they should take time to consider it. Mr Sievwright said there would only be another meeting of the Board before the time fixed for the opening of tenders, and as there was nothing in the advertisement stating that it was optional for the Board to accept any tender it was a question whether they would not be bound by law to accept one for

each section. He did not wish to dispute ihe ruling of the chair, but he thought the Enatter was one of urgency which would Midmit of his motion being received. M Mr Bennett said as the Chairman had Jftuled the motion could not be put there W should be no discussion allowed upon it. “Mr Sievwright again contended that his motion could be put. The Chairman adhered to his decision and said even supposing they were almost unanimous it was not right for a bare quorum to subvert what had already been done. He desired to allow the petition every consideration, but they mnst not controvert the rules. Dr Pollen's motion, he thought, would not have the desired effect. He thought it would be better to move that the time be extended, so that any other action could be taken. Mr Bennett asked whether it was fair that the meeting should be jumped on in that Way. The resolution in regard to the block had been made on the 26th of March, and here, three weeks from the time the tenders were to close, the petition was presented, without anyone but the member who presented it having any knowledge it would come on. They had no less than five months in which to present it, and it was wrong for a meeting of five members of the Board then to think of altering what had been done. If Mr Sievwright wanted to carry out his ides he should do it in a constitutional way, by giving notice of motion, and bringing it on next meeting, " The Chairman said what they wanted to do sras to meet the view? of ths ratepayers, se far as they coincided with those of members, and what was good for the public, Mr Bennett said when the petition had been presented against the contract system, he had at once withdrawn his motion, because the petition had been signed by a majority nf ratepayers, but the one before them had only a small minority, about qp.g tenth, and the pther nine teq’fis ought to be considered, Mr Townley said it was quite a common thing lor Government lands to be withdrawn alter they had been offered for tender. Ha thought a resolution of the Board should not

stand in the face of a petition of this kind, even ii it came on the meeting night before the'teeders closed. Mr Bennett had *S>d it was not signed hy the large rcinholders. Mr Bennett said be had stated 11 large ratepayers.” Mr Townley said they had never expected psepie whs weuld themselves like to get hold of 50,000 acres, to sign the petition. The rcopls ’ 7 ?° “*4 signed, he believed, bad given the matter vsiy careful consideration, This was a very different thing to the petition on the contract system, fet it would be binding fot thirty years, While ha agreed they eoulfl

not rescind the previous resolution the time could be extended, so as to give a full meeting of the Board an opportunity to decide the matter. There was a large numbar of ratepayers, besides those who had signed the petition, against the proposal. It was not altogether a question of the rent they would obtain, but even in that respect he ventured to sav they would got more by having a larger number of people on the block. The more people they had on it the better it would be. Mr Bennett said Mr Townley was opening up the question they had been arguing for months, Mr Townley said he had disagreed with the resolution of the Board in the first instance, but they had now to consider the petition. He moved that the time for receiving tenders be postponed for two months from the first October. Mr Bennett said Mr Townley had objected to so much money being spent in advertising the block, and now that was to be thrown away, Mr Townley said ha still held the opinion that they did not require to spend so much, but if it led to their getting a dozen settiers on the land instead of only two, the money would bo well spent. Dr Poden withdrew his motion in favor of that of Mr Townley. If he was not a member of the Board he would himself have signed the petition. The only thing that troubled them was in a way breaking faith with those who intended to submit tenders, and he thought Mr Townley’s motion made a good way of getting out of the difficulty, Mr Sievwright would support Mr Townley’s motion, but made it understood that in doing so he was perfectly free to make any further proposition before the time had expired. Mr Bennett said Mr Sievwright’s remarks proved that he intended to re-open the question. He rose to a point of order. The Chairman said if the motion were carried there was nothing to prevent any member taking further action in the matter at a future period, The motion was then carried. For I The Chairman, Dr Pollen, Messrs Townley and Sievwright; against: Mr Bennett.