Untitled

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 278, 26 March 1889, Page 2

Our contemporary last night had another of those delightful essays which contain so much and yet so little. Harbor matters are of course the subject, and the motion which comes on at to-night's meeting of the Board had the benefit of a good longwinded overhaul. If reference were only made to previous files the writer might have given extracts from the leading columns as a reply to what has appeared at a later date. Of course it would show the inconsistency, but use accustoms some people to many things which would nettle the conscience of other people. Boiled down into plain English our contemporary says : —“ We are ignorant as to what is the best course to take ; thia is good and that is bad, that is bad and this is good. As bad is to good and good is to bad—well, you fellows had better go and argue it out among yourselves ; then give us the tip and we’ll side with the majority.” A special point is made of the fact that Sir John Coode and Mr Thomson have been much above the mark in their estimates’ of progress. Now we think that Mr Mullane ought to be a better judge as to horsework, and Mr McLoughlin as to the supplying of stone, than either Sir John Coode or Mr Thomson, but when it comes to breakwater construction proper the latter gentlemen are a little above the ordinary run of persons, and if they are so wide in their estimates, how would it he with ordinary contractors ? If they made an over estimate they would get the benefit of it at the ratepayer’s expense, if an underestimate then it would perhaps be worse. If, as stated, everything is now easy to calculate, where would the gain •ome in except by the reduction of working men’s wages ? However the Board may decide, we hope they will not resort to any such contemptible means as have been suggested of first calling for tenders and putting tenderers to allhinds of trouble and expense, and then deciding as to whether or not the work shall be done by contract. There should be some principle in dealing with such matters, and the Board should not think of calling for tenders unless a majority first decides that the remainder of the work is to be done by contract. As our contemporary suggests, by a reduction of the working men’s wages a saving might possibly be effected, but we hope that cuch paltry reasons will not be considered, and we doubt very much whether, if the Board acted in such a niggardly manner, they would in the end be the gainer.