D.—4.

164

[M. MYERS-

the purpose of improving the port and so reducing, if it can be reduced, the cost of carriage of goods into the locality. What they want is that the whole of the money which they suggest should be devoted to the improvement of the river is to be obtained—where and how ? It is to be obtained by filching it from the railway revenue —in other words, it is to be taken at the expense of the general public. That is the position. Now, your Honour, I have said they suggest that this revenue is to be taken by them and to bo devoted to the dredging of the river. Well, as I said before, I do not intend to analyse all the evidence which has been given, but I do ask the Commission to consider the engineering evidence which has been given by Mr. Fitzgerald, by Mr. Edwards, and by Mr. Holmes with regard to the proposals that have been made by the Foxton Harbour Board. I expressly refrain from attempting to analyse the evidence upon this particular point, and I expressly refrain from doing anything more than merely referring to it, because your Honour has associated with you upon the Commission gentlemen who are put there, I presume, because they are themselves men of practical knowledge in matters of this sort. But, your Honour, I cannot resist putting one aspect of this river-improvement question before the Commission. I should have thought, quite apart from the evidence of any engineer—I may be quite wrong —but I should have thought that, with a bar of that kind, it would be contrary to common-sense to attempt dredging without first in some way controlling or attempting to control the channel of the river or constructing training-walls at the mouth. Here we have a river whose channel at the bar has already shifted at least a mile and a half, and which shifts now 200 or 300 yards, and yet it is suggested that by mere dredging the condition at the bar is to ,be improved. Well, I venture to suggest that that scheme is contrary to commonsense, and the Commission will remember that it is the condition at the bar that is the governing factor in connection with the navigation of the river. Plainly, unless the condition at the bar is improved, it is of no use trying to improve the channel. The witnesses have said that at neap tides the vessels cannot negotiate the bar, or, at all events, they cannot negotiate it except with a very light draught,. Very well: what is the use of attempting to interfere with the channel unless the controlling factor — that is, the bar—is first attacked ? What then, is going to be the result of these dredging operations ? I venture to suggest to the Commission that the actual sovereigns might just as well be thrown by the Railway Department or the Government into the bed of the river as be handed over to a local body—I do not care whether the Foxton Harbour Board or any other local body—for the doing of the work which it is suggested, and the only work which it is suggested, the Harbour Board proposes to do in connection with the attempted improvement of the river conditions. Mr. McVilly informs me, your Honour, and this can be verified by reference to official documents in the Parliamentary Buildings —that when this Bill of 1908 was first presented to Parliament —— The Chairman : What Bill ? Mr. Myers : The local Act reconstituting the Foxton Harbour Board. It contained in it a provision, either a reference in the preamble to these wharfage charges or an express provision—Mr. McVilly says it was an express provision—that these wharfage charges should be the property of the Board, but that was refused and struck out. The Chairman : I do not know if that helps us in any way. The best proof is that the Government have not assented to it and that they have issued a Commission to consider it. Mr. Myers : Yes, true ; but I am only saying that by way of answer to the suggestion that was made to me during the proceedings—I think at Foxton or Palmerston- that the mere existence of the Harbour Board, or the fact that it was allowed by Parliament to be reconstituted in 1908, was a reason 'rf- why these wharfages should be handed over. I am simply informing the Commission that that was expressly considered by the Local Bills Committee or by Parliament in 1908 ; that the Foxton Harbour Board had not overlooked the fact; that they had included provision that they should have these wharfage charges, and that the provision was struck out. Mr. Weston : My friend has mentioned this new fact, and I should like to say that the fact was that in 1908 Mr. Millar opposed the Bill. He said, " If you dojiot strike out the wharfages the Government will block the Bill" ; and we know Mr. Millar's attitude by his speech in 1910. Mr. Myers : As a matter of fact it was not Mr. Millar, but another Minister altogether. It was the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones who had the Bill in his charge. That is neither here nor there ; but it would probably be a good thing if the attitude taken up by Mr. Millar in connection with this matter were more often taken up in our political life. What I mean is that it would be an advantage if the members of the Government, having decided what they think is right, adhered to it in the face of what has been referred to as " the pressure of public opinion," which is perhaps a euphemism. Now, your Honour, there are other matters to be considered in connection with this Foxton Wharf question apart from the probability —amounting to a certainty, I submit— that the money will be w r asted if it is handed over to the Harbour Board. What I refer to is this : the Commission have been informed that haulage and handling and sorting charges are charges which can properly be made in the future, and could properly have been made in the past. What does that mean ? It means this : first of all, that if this wharf were handed over to the Board, the work in connection with discharging the ships and handling the cargo must be done by someone. It must be done either by the Board or by the Railway Department under an arrangement with the Board. Now, there can be no doubt that it would have to be done in this case by the Railway Department: it could not be done by the Board. Very well: the result would be that the Harbour Board would certainly receive no more by way of net revenue than the Railway Department has been receiving, because the wharf would still have to be maintained and the labour would still have to be paid for, and the charges with which the revenue has been debited are really only the charges for labour and maintenance. But the Board would require something more in the way of secretarial or administrative services than it requires now. It would become a bigger body and a more responsible body, and its expenses wouM be correspondingly increased. Further than that, the Railway Department would still have to do the haulage and sorting, and would