The Harbor Pier.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 314, 20 June 1889, Page 3

The Harbor Pier.

Withdrawal of proposal to let BY CONTRACT.

At the Harbor Board on Tuesday night Mr Sievwright presented the petition of ratepayers (reference to which has previously been made) against the proposal to let the breakwater pier by contract. The petition was taken as having been read, all the members having read It In the newspapers. At the conclusion of the other business the Secretary road Mr Bennett’s notice of motion that tenders be called for letting the construction of the remainder of the pier by contract.

Mr Sievwright rose to a point of order, and called the Chairman'* attention to the fact that there was already a resolution on the minute book, deciding against contract, and that would have to be rescinded before another of the same nature could bo nut to Ute meeting. Mr Bennett t Mr Sievwright can save himself a iMech, In view of this rthe petition" I would not have the majority with me if I

put it to to the meeting, and I beg to withdraw the proposition. Nevertheless lam quite Certain that the proper way to carry on these things is by contract, for the best interests of the ratepayers generally. We ourselves have not asked a single person outside the Board to support us, whereas everybody in the place has been buttonholed to sign this [the petition], Mr Matthewson objected to the motion being withdrawn—he did not think Mr Bennett could do so at that stage. The Chairman said the motion ha l only been given notice of and was not yet the property of the Board. The Chairman said he thought the mover had taken the best course. The matter, be believed, had been well ventilated, and each member supported what he honestly believed was tor the best interests of the ratepayers. He, for his part, could not see how a radical change at this stage of the piooeedings, when they had the plant and everything in going order and working to the satisfaction of everyone, could be for the better. He thought the Board could iu this work do best by being its own contractor.

Mr Clark: I believe we had a majority, but it was a very narrow one, and I think it would be a pity for a bare majority to upset the working of the Board. But my own opinion is that even at this stage the contract system is the best one. I have been told that it is too late in the day for a contract, but the contract would be the biggest one let in Poverty Bay. Our having the plant is an argument in favor of a contract. It would be more economical. But there is a strong compact body against the system in this Board, and I think it would be a fight all through ; and it would be a pity to start a new arrangement, seeing that we have such a compact opposition. The conditions of tender are such as to preclude what we desired. Although I still firmly believe in the contract system, I think, in the circumstances, it will be better to drop the matter.

The Chairman: Don't you think we, having an organised staff, an Engineer at a large salary, and plant and everything in good going order, can do our work as well as any contractor can, and as cheaply ? Mr Clark: Not for a moment. The Chairman: It you tell us In what we fail we would be able to mend our ways, Mr Clark was perfectly satisfied it could be done better by contract. The Chairman: I have never heard any. thing suggested to the effect that the work is not done honestly. We hear even public men who have visited the place say that no work is done so well as this one.

Mr Clark said it was very common to hear public men and Cabinet Ministers come to the place, pat us on the back and tell us what a fine lot of people we are and what a fine district thia is, make ail kinds of promises, say goodbye and God bless us, and then never think of redeeming the promises. The Chairman : I think we can place some reliance on Mr Higginson's opinion. I want to know in what way Mr Clark thinks we fail,

Mr Clark: It is like a Government arrange, ment; I am satisfied if the work were in private hands it would be different. Mr Matthewson: I am sorry that Mr Bennett has withdrawn his motion. We started on the wrong track, and to-night we are on the wrong track, and we ought to alter it for a better course. We have set ourselves a heavy burden, and by all human experience the work can ba done better by contract than by day labor. Other breakwaters built by contract have been quite efficiently done, and there is no reason why we should not have adopted the same system. Contractors always work better than day laborers. If we had a contract there would not have been so much money spent on needless plant, but that is done now, and there is no need to hark back, lam certain that if the work had been let by contract at first it would now have been out twice the distance for the same amount of money. By ths specifications and conditions submitted to the Board no man would contract for the work. I regret the withdrawal of the motion, but must submit to it.

Mr Shelton : As you (the Chairman) ask in what way the work could be improved by contracting, I say by better supervision. At the last meeting the Engineer explained to ub that there was practically no supervision of the foundation. It was bis whole argument in favor of the Board carrying on the work by contract. The Engineer: I say, simply, that Mr Shelton is telling an untruth. Mr Chambers: If two former Boards, ths member* of which I think can claim to be equal in intelligence to the present Board, had the question before them for three years and decided in favor of day labor, it is too late now going in for the contract system, and I do not see that the new members who have come on the Board have any higher ability than the others, The Chairman: I don’t suppose they say that.

Mr Chambers: They say we have been wrong. Ths Chairman: They judge by their own minds.

Mr Chambers: For two years and a half Mr Clark has been against the contract system. Mr Clark said he was not, but he had seen the majority were against it so he took no move in the matter.

Mr Shelton: Ido not want to let the statement the Engineer has just made go unchallenged. I merely quoted his own words. I asked him what supervision there was of the bottom of the work. He said that of the diver. I asked him if Mr Bioheno or

anyone had gone down to inspect the work. He said no ; that they simply took soundings. By that answer there is no supervision but that of the diver, an example of whom we have seen this evening. [At a previous stage of the proceedings the diver had come into the room evidently with the intention of increasing the wisdom of members, but he only got out the word “ Gentlemen ” when he was induced to gracefully retire.] As it was 10.40 o’clock some nf the members rose to go; the Secretary called attention to the fact that there was no quorum, and thus the informal discuition terminated.