HARBOR BOARD.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 213, 25 October 1888, Page 2

HARBOR BOARD.

An ordinary meeting of the above was held on Tuesday night. Present; The Chairman (Captain Tucker), and Messrs Murphy, Clark, Townley, Matthewson, Dickson, and Gannon. rates on native and crown lands. Some correspondence was read with regard to the rates due to the Board on Crown and Native Lands. A communication was received from the Department to the effect that the rates were not recoverable under the new Act, but on application to the Premier ho stated that the clause did not apply in the case of the Gisborne Harbor Board, Mr Matthewson said the Premier’s state, ment would not commit the Property Tax Commissioner. Mr Dickson moved that the Premier’s reply be filed. Mr Clark suggested a copy of the telegram be sent to Mr Sperry. The Chairman said the reply seemed quite definite. He suggested that the amount be applied for, and making reference to the Premier’s telegram. This course was agreed to. LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr Matthewson asked for leave of absence for that and the next meeting to Mr Sievwright, on account of ill-health. Granted, with expression of regret at the cause which enforced Mr Sievwright’s absence. THE PUBLIC MEETING. A copy was han led in of the resolut io passed at the public meeting, urging the vigorous prosecution of the harbor .works, consistent with a due regard for the law. The Chairman thought there was no need to discuss the letter- they need only acknowledge it. REPORTS. The Harbormaster made a general report. The Engineer’s report stated that if there was a prospect of the works being continued tenders should be called for a cargo of coal, as there were none on hand, and it would take some time to get it from Greymouth. The machinery also required painting up. Mr Dickson proposed that no action bo taken with regard to a supply ot coal, qnti! the poll was taken. The Chairman said there was no need for the motion, as there was yet no proposition to get the coals. He thought it would be as well to have the machinery attended to, no matter what the ultimate result might be. Mr Dickson seconded the motion with regard to the machinery, provided the work was done by tender. The Engineer said it would be difficult to have it done by contract, as only parts of the machinery would require to be done, and it would have to be carefully overhauled. Mr Dickson did not see why the work could not be done under the supervision of the Engineer. He proposed that tenders be called for the work, to be done under the supervision of the Engineer, who would be empowered to accept the lowest tender. Mr Matthewson seconded. Mr Townley proposed that the Engineer be authorised to do the work, which was such that it could not ba satisfactorily done by contract, as it required to be carefully dona and the Engineer would have to judge what was wanted as the work proceeded. The ducts required to be moved, nuts to be unscrewed and greased and carefully tightened up again and so on. If it were done by contract there Was no relying on getting these little things attended to. If they could not spend a few pounds to keep this valuable machinery in order they must ba getting hard pressed. The motion was carried, Mr Dickson being against. The meeting lasted over tour hours.