10 -
41
Sir David at this point ignores the report of Messrs. Coode,
Fitzmaurice, Wilson and Mitchell, Consulting Engineers, and the
proposals advanced in Mr. Duncan's report, or the reasons, such
as strikes, boycotts and the diminution of world trade, which may
have contributed to the feeling that the adoption of a plan for
development was unnecessary, because the facilities of the Port
were likely to be adequate for many years to come and private
enterprise might be relied upon, as in the past, to meet the needs
of the situation.
Sir David sums up the situation by expressing the view that
the doctrine of "laissez faire" well described the attitude of
Government to the Harbour. He was of the opinion that taking
everything into consideration it was not desirable to allow matters
to remain as they were.
(c) The author of the report then proceeds to consider whether
it might be desirable to adopt some improved form of Government
control and in particular the formation of a special department for
the purpose of controlling the Harbour, with possibly an outside
body to advise on Port matters.
Such Governmental control he states is not regarded as
successful in South Africa and would in effect be bureaucratic and
that form of control, he says, is not highly regarded nowadays.
Harbour Advisory Boards he regards as unsatisfactory as they
can only express opinions and make recommendations without any
quarantee that they will be carried out. In this connection he
points to the inactivity of the Harbour Advisory Board which was
established in 1929 and the Harbour Advisory Committee which
succeeded it in 1931.
For the foregoing reasons Sir David rules out direct Government
control in the form mentioned, even with the assistance of an Advisory
Board, and thus falls back on his third possible course
the
establishment of control by some form of Port Authority or Trust.