HARBOR BOARD.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 285, 11 April 1889, Page 3

HARBOR BOARD.

3Behz ordinary meeting of the above was held night. Present: The Chairman, and Messrs Bennett, Shelton, Sievwright, (Hark, Townley, Chambers, Matthewson, and i turphy. Messrs McEwan and Co wrote notifying t hat they had shipped 1050 (casks of cement I ier lonic. Mr Burt (Dunedin) sent a photo of cement liesting machine, which they could ship at £3O, f.o.b. Dunedin.—Letter received. Mr Faram, the Secretary of the Fire Brigade, wrote requesting the patronage and lapport of the Board to the proposed com- ’• petition among the Fire Brigades on May 24, ilt which it was intended to invite the whole ■ >f the Brigades in the North Island.—Acceded 1». THE BOARD AND PUBLIC TRUSTEE. The Public Trustee wrote In reply to yonr favor of the 13th instant, it have to inform you that I am willing to .Await payment of the £4,165 nntil the date upon which the Board’s deposit at the Union Bank matures (14th prox). With reference lio the intention of your Board, notified in Font favor of 14th instant, I am advised that election 7 of the Gisborne Harbor Act, 1884, . Amendment Act, 1888, overrides the agreement 'entered into in April 1887, and the dnty imposed by the said section is to pay the money ito the Public Trustee. As, however, it seems to be the desire of the Board that the money lie deposited at the Union Bank for twelve months, I shall be willing that this course be adopted, provided the Bank agree to allow the name rate of interest (£5 per cent, per annum) its can be obtained by investing in Government securities, and also provided that the deposit receipt is made out in the Public Sfrustee’s name and forwarded to this office custody. Mr At the wson thought the Board should not < Age itself—it was a matter purely bitwJKthe Trustee and the Bank and they ghoulß not pot their fingers in it. On the previous communication of the Board being read, Mr Clark said he thought they were bound by the letter, and there was DO use discussing it further. There being no motion, the matter dropped, MCLEOD’S COXTRACT. The Committee appointed to go. into this matter reported that they considered Mr McLeod was not entitled by law to any compensation, but considering that he had done work for which he had not received full benefit and by which the Board bad been a gainer, they thought Mr McLeod should get a moderate amount of compensation. They suggested that an assessor be appointed to decide upon the matter, or if not satisfaotory, two assessors and an umpire whose decision would Im final.

After discussion the report was adopted in the following amended form: — In its opinion, the agreement made by Mr McLeod with the Engineer does not entitle him in law to any compensation, but taking into consideration the fact that before he got

notice of the termination of his agreement he had made certain service lines from which he got small benefit, your Committee is of opinion that as these works will be of ultimate benefit to tbe Board be is in equity entitled to a moderate amount of compensation, Your Committee therefore suggest that a valuer be appointed to assess the value to the Board of the work done, under deduction of the value of benefit derived by Mr McLeod, and that Mr McLeod be invited to abide by the decision of the Board's assessor, or at his option appoint his own assessor. In the latter event the two assessors to appoint an umpire, whose decision shall be final. Mr Matthewson proposed, and Mr Chamber! ascended, that Captain Winter be appointed as the Board's assessor, to act under directions of Board's Committee.— Carried.

~k- TAUWHAREPARAE BLOCK. The Committee appointed to draw np conditions in regard to the Block recommended that in addition to the usual clauses in leases, the following recommendations be made, viz. To promote bona fide settlement, that the lessee dear and lay down in permanent grass 1000 acres within the first two years and a (further area of 1000 acres within the third year. A farther suggestion of your Committee re insurance has been incorporated in the draft lease by your solicitor, which we herewith submit. Mr Sievwnght moved that the report be referred back to the Committee for better terms, as he characterised the terms on which they proposed to let the land as a travesty upon settlement. Mr Clark contended that if a person expended £2OOO in tbe first few years he would be bound to go on with it to recoup himself, or else give it up, when the improvements upon the land would fall back to the Board. Mr Chambers thought they would do better to hold back for two years, when they would get a better price. He considered it would be a mistake to let it two holders only. If they could get about eight holders pn they would get much more in rates—the rent was a mere bagatelle. He did not believe they would get more than threepence an acre for the land at present. Mr Bennett’s idea was that they should get large holders who would be able to undertake the improvement oi the land, and at the end of the term it would be all cleared and laid down, when small holders could take it up. Mr Chambers said Mr Bennett was legislating for posterity. Mr Bennett said they had been deferring the matter time after time, and they might leave it until the year 2,750, and then they get more for the land. said they should put it to, and ascertain the value of the lamAg public tender, bnt if the price was too low they should not throw the land away; they might easily withdraw it from the market.

Messrs Chambers and Sievwright Strongly objected to such a principle as put.jOsing the land up to tender and then reject’Sg then all; no one would tender if it was uncertain that any tender would be accepted. Mr Matthewson said it was a right which was always maintained by public bodies, that they were not bound to accept any tender, and they should not lose that right. Mr Bennett moved that the report be adopted, the minimum value to be l|d. Mr Clark seconded; that was the most business like method they hgd taken yet with regard to the block, Mr Sievwright moved as an amendment that the upset price be 6d per acre. There was no seconder to the amendment, and the motion was carried, Messrs SievJrriglit and Townley against. Mr Clark proposed that the block be advertised in the principal towns of the Colony and in Sydney, and Melbourne. Mr Matthewson seconded. The Chairman moved as an amendment that the Committee be instructed to consider and report as to the best method of carrying out the law with respect to the lease of the land. Mr Shelton seconded. Mr Clark withdrew hie motion in favor of the amendment, which was carried. Another amendment that the discussion be deferred for twelve months, proposed by Mr Chambers, and seconded by Mr Sievyright, had no other supporters. BWOSTS. The Harbormaster, in a general report, in reference to the wreck of the Clansman, stated his opinion that inferior chains should not bo used in roadsteads or open harbors. The Engineer reported The section of breakwater on hand at last

meeting was finished on Thursday—making a total length of 685 feet. We were kept back considerably by rough weather, I am preparing plans to submit to tbe Marine Department for carrying on the work beyond the point at present authorised. Eleven hundred and five casks of cement have been delivered from Mr Duthie, of Wellington. It will ba necessary to stop taking stone on Haiti Beach a certain distance, because the carters are now taking stone that we can got by the railway. I think they might be allowed to take stone and shingle np to say a mile and a half from the breakwater; wo could erect a fist pole, beyond which no stone is to ba remeted. The Clansman wont Mure an Tbwrtay lul dariag tta g*l*i Bbt it lyinj

about 1,200 feet to the westward of the breakwater. I had a set of soundings taken this afternoon at the end of the breakwater—on a line square off the pier we got, at three feet distance, 14 feet water at low water, at 12 feet 18 feet water, at 25 and 30 feet, 10 feet of water, and from 40 to 130 feet distance, 9 feet at low water. At an angle of 45 degrees, with pier 40 feet out, gave 10 feet, and 80 feet out, 9 feet at low water. The report was adopted. In regard to the question of stone, it was shown that the Board had no authority to make the prohibition requested, unless they obtained the exclusive right from the Government. Mr Chambers proposed, and Mr Sievwright seconded, that this be applied for. For : Messrs Chambers, Sievwright, Clark, and Matthewson. Against: The Chairman, and Messrs Townley, Bennett, Murphy and Shelton. ACCOUNTS. Payments were passed as below: — J. Thompson, £1 ; J. Duthie and Co., £770; Kennedy and Evans, £3O 8s fid ;G. Humphreys, £150; H. E. Johnston, £l7 4s 9d; Wingate, Burns and Co., £ll 16s 9d; W. King, £5 16s fid; Brown and Smaill, £ll 2s; J. Adams, £1 18s 3d ; E. Spurdie, £1 Us; P. McLoughlin, £34 12s 4d; J. Mullane, £5 19s 3d; Wages account, £204 9s Bd. NEXT MEETING. It was carried that the next meeting of the Board be a month hence, owing to the holidays, the Finance Committee to be authorised to pass the fortnightly payments. THE CONTRACT PRINCIPLE.

Mr Bennett’s motion was brought on, that the Engineer prepare and submit to the Board specifications for letting the construe tion of the breakwater by contract. The Chairman said the motion did not commit the Board to anything. In speaking to the motion Mr Bennett said the hour was late, and the thing had been fully threshed out, so that he would have little to say on it. The motion did not bind them to more than the preparation of specifications, and the affirmation of the principle of public tendering. Unless any member had bad anything new to tell them the motion might be put without further discussion. Mr Matthewson seconded. The principle of public tendering was one that was carried out all over the world and he supported that principle. Mr Bennett said he had been informed that there was at least £24,000 yet to expend —it had been stated in the papers it was only £16,000. His contention was they were not getting sufficient value for their money, and he defied them to show that work was done better by day labor than by contract. The Warrnambool breakwater was a great illuattation of this.

Mr Chamber! asked why Mr Bennett required to go all that distance to find an illustration ? Had he not as a surety himself had to come to the Board for remission of a penalty. Mr Bennett: Exactly, because yon were soft. Even then the Board had made a big saving in comparison to what they were paying for stone. Then look at the difference public tendering was making now in the price they paid for atone as compared with when he (Mr Bennett) was elected a member. Mr Sievwright thought the resolution put the cart before the horse—they ought to begin by saying whether they would make use of the specifications. It was not for them to discuss the other point now, but he was perfectly satisfied when they had the specifications they would not do well by changing the present method. As Mr Bennets said the matter had been completely threshed out, the result of that threshing being they had decided in favor of day labor, which had been found satisfaotory. It would result, so far as the Engineer was concerned, in relieving him of a great deal of responsibility. The motion in its present form was only Imposing a lot of work on the Engineer for no purpose. Mr Shelton said it would give him no further trouble than he had at present—he ought to have all the information always before him. Mr Chambers said after four and a half years' satisfactory experience of the present system they should not now make a change. He could see no reason for the alteration of the present method in favor of contracting. A contractor would have to make allowance for all sorts of risks. In Gisborne the breakwater was being made in a land locked harbor, where they had no contingencies to contend with—the whole thing was plain straightforward work): there was no more risk about it than putting up a post and rail fence. If there was any profit to be made out of the work let the Board make it. [Mr Bennett: Hear, hear.] It was simply wasting the Engineer’s time asking him to make out specifications, as he was sure they would not act upon them. Mr Tqwnley would vote against the motion. The Chairman said the principle of contracting was a good one, but he had heard no satisfactory reason, having gone so far as they had done, that they should now let the work by contract. They had got a good start, were possessed ot all the plant in working order, and he saw no reason now for a change. There would be no prejudice to putting the motion at any future time.

The motion was put and carried, For— Messrs Bennett, Shelton, Matthewson, Clark, and Murphy. Against—Messrs Sievwright, Chambers, Townley, and the Chairman.

engineer's position, Mr Chambers moved, in accordance with notice, that the previous resolution giving the Engineer notice of termination of his engagement, be rescinded. He thought the Board had made a great mistake in passing the resolution—it was not a thing which any member ot the Board would have Jone to his own servant, to give him notice to force his hand. The Board had quite lost sight of the main point in tbe action they took. Mr Clark seconded the motion. It was time enough to find out the terms of Mr Thomson’s notice if they had any doubt about it, when they wanted to get quit of hirn. At present members all expressed themselves satisfied with him, and they might well leave the matter alone, especially after the motion joit passed, asking the Engineer to prepare specifications for the construction of the work by contract, Mr Chambers pointed out that the Engineer had shown a desire to work with the Board, as when the works were temporarily stopped, he of his own accord agreed to the deduction of a month’s salary, Mr Shelton would vote against the motion, The works were now nearing completion so far as they could go, and some provision would have to be made with regard to the Engineer, and the question having been raised now ought to be settled. It would be childish of them, after having passed the motion, to rescind it again, Mr Olark pointed out that there were only a few members of the Board present when the motion was passed. The Chairman said the matter had been before them often enough, and the members had sufficient notice—the Engineer had been simply unapproachable, in the way of making any arrangement. Mr Sievwright said according to the solicitor's opinion they would have to give the Engineer six months’ notice, dating from stated periods, and the recommendation of the Committee was not within the advice of the solicitor. There was no need for all thia to do. He felt certain that when the £40,000 was spent the works would have to stop, and Mr Thomson's engagement would certainly cease. He objected to the specious form of nigger driving spirit displayed by the Committee in their report. He regarded the motion previously passed as folly—they ought to withdraw from the position while they had a chance to do so. He was present when the agreement was made with Mr Thomson, and it was understood that the engagement lasted until the work was finished, during good behaviour—that was what all understood, and apart from any other view of the question, that should ba honorably carried out. Mr Townly failed to see the necessity for giving the notice. He had voted against the i previous motion, and would therefore vote i In favor of the present one. It was suffli elently clear that the Engineer's services would terminate with the stoppage of the ' works, and there was nothing to be gained by taking the ooutse that had Seen previously i dtoidsd apod. I gThefiMatisn (Wts IOBt. Fot I Mmih BiCf.

wright, Clark. Chambers and Townley. Against: The Chairman and Messis Bennett, Snelton, Matthewson, and Murphy. Mr Shelton then gave notice to move that the Board be prepared to meet Mr Thomson, if he is inclined to do so, with the object of framing a fresh agreement.