HARBOR BOARD.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 192, 6 September 1888, Page 2

HARBOR BOARD.

A special meeting of the Harbor Board was held last night. Present: The Chairman and Messrs Chambers, Dickson, Murphy, Clark, Matthewson, Tucker, Gannon, and Townley. The object of the meeting was to take into consideration the amended Harbor Bill. Mr Graham had been requested to attend. He said he thought there was a misapprehension as to the posibility of a measure of this kind being got through the House, especially anything concerning harbors. He detailed the forms of the House, which were very stiff with regard to the local Bills. Neither last session nor this session did any local Bill that was opposed in any of its stages pass (except the Gisborne Harbor Bill on both occasions), because it was so easy for any member to talk them out. Anyone in Wellington with a Harbor Bill was looked upon with pity. This was not to be wondered at when they saw how all the other harbor works were failing. He himself was rather astonished that the Bill had passed, and this was due to a great extent from the action of certain local people. Ormond and Whitmore’s opposition was reasonable enough, considering that the ratepayers there had nearly all petitioned against the work, and they did not receive the same advantages as those in other districts did. He thought from Mr Higginson’s report that there was no use in asking for permission to spend more than £40,000 as the report stated that the district could not bear a further expense. The hostile Committee were convinced in spite of their previous feelings that it was only fair to give the ratepayers an opportunity to say whether they should go on with the works. Mr Gannon thought it right to tell Mr Graham that a number of the members had not seen the Act.

Mr Graham said the feeling against harbor works was growing stronger each year, and if they had hung up the works for a year they might have fared worse next year. No one could understand the clauses inserted in the Bill by Sir George Whitmore. Mr Sievwright said there were one or two things that required attention. One was that a poll had to be taken to say whether the £40,000 should be spent or not. He thought it was impossible to understand what the meaning of the clause was. They should refer the Bill to their solicitor first, especially as to the sth clause. His idea was that Tologa and Waiapu had gone a long way to put their hands in their own pockets. He moved that the Bill be referred to their solicitor for his opinion. Mr Dickson could make nothing of the Sth clause. He would make a resolution to the effect that the Board refuse to take a poll. He thought they should get Mr Bell’s opinion, while he was in Gisborne. He was against a poll unless it was taken on the whole district. They should pass the resolution and get up a monster petition setting forth their feelings. Mr Chambers seconded the Chairman’s resolution. He thought it would be foolish to take any action until they understood the drift of the Bill. After all, Mr Graham had taken the wisest course in allowing the Bill to go on. They ware in no worse position than they were before. If the security was not diminished, ha would want the works to go on, but if the security was diminished he would support Jfr Dickson. Mr Gannon wanted to know which tree the Board was barking up. He thought they had no right to listen to the member for the district. Mr Chambers: What tree are you barking up ? (Laughter.) Mr Gannon moved that the meeting be adjourned for a week, so that each member could consider the amended Act. Captain Tucker thought they should have time to consider the Act. It might be as well to invite their solicitor to be present at next meeting. Mr Townley thought the matter should bo referred to the solicitor. Mr Clark was of the same opinion as Mr Chambers as to the course they should take. The Chairman was willing to add to his motion that the solicitor should obtain extra legal assistance, it necessary. On the Chairman going to put his motion, Mr Gannon asked that his amendment be put first. The Chairman said there was no seconder. Mr Matthewson seconded the amendment. He thought they should consider the matter thoroughly. The Chairman said it was too late to take an amendment. Messrs Gannon and Matthewson strongly protested against the Chairman’s ruling, and Mr Gannon asked that his protest should be recorded. Mr Dickson rose and asked that his amendment be accepted. Mr Matthewson rose to a point of order, as Mr Dickson’s amendment had already lapsed for want of a seconder. The motion was then put and carried, Messrs Dickson, Matthewson, and Gannon voting against it. This concluded the business.