HARBOR BOARD.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 667, 8 October 1891, Page 2

HARBOR BOARD.

Them was no meeting of the Harbor Board on Tuesday night, owing to the want of a quorum. Those who attended were ths Chairman (Mr Townley) and Messrs Arthur, Matthewson, and Joyce. The Chairman said he regretted there was not a quorum, as apart from the question of works, there were one or two important matters to bring forward. A letter was received from Mr M. McLeod, stating that his plan to remove the rocks iu the river had failed, and as the time was nearly up, he left it to the Board to decide what would be done in the matter. The letter of course could not be discussed. The Chairman said ha noticed by Hansard that the Hon. John McKenzie had been given a free hand with £50,000 for expenditure on roads to open up Crown lands. He (the Chairman) had hoped that the matter could have been discussed at that meeting, and some effort made to get Mr McKenzie or the Premier to come up to Gisborne to have a look round. Mr Arthur suggested that the Chairman should confer with Mr Clark, the County Chairman, and they could suggest what should be done in the matter. Mr Warren said the Minister had control of the money under the Loans to Local Bodies Act. If say a settlement were opened up in some district, the money could be loaned upon the land for reading purposes. None of the mcney would be granted except for opening new settleThe' Chairman said it appeared from Hansard that the money might be used to open up new roads. Mr Warren said he had followed the thing closely all through, and was confident In hia view of thp njatter. The Chairman said then even if there were the limit stated it might be possible for the district to get some portion for reading purposes. Letters were read from Mr Relly and from the Government, in regard to the endowment asked for. The latter stated the block asked for was required for settlement purposes. [Mr Arthur: We have got an answer to that. The Chairman i We don’t want to put the land into a glass ease just to look at.) Mr Kelly’s letter stated that there was no hope of getting the block asked for, but advised that another one be selected, and the application be renewed. The letter stated that Ministers explained that If they gave the endowment all ’the other Boards in the colony would be down on them for like concessions. ....... The Chairman remarked that it was ourioue that the block applied for should be refused •‘because it was wanted for settlement,” while they were advised to apply for another. Mr Matthewson : Apply for one in Otago. The Chairman said that though this little block was “ requited for settlement,” the Brerhiet could himself propose to form a River Trust Board at Wanganui, and put unde? their control 200,000 acres of land, the land being a mile wide along the river bank and 10,000 acres beside, That was not “ required for settlement." Mr Arthur suggested that the Chairman interview Mr Clark and he could bring up the question of roads at the County Council meeting. Membore agreed that it would be advisable th leave thd matter to f,[)C .Ihslrmen. as nothing could be done at that informal meeting. ..... The Chairman mentioned that he had received a demand for the payment of calls of £1 10s on Red Mercury shares, this being a portion of the scrip in the estate of the late John Bourke. It the calls were not paid the shares were to be forfeited. He did not know whether Red M Br owy shares were any good. Mr Matthewson said they were of fair value. It was mentioned that the Building Society had hot yet received demands for calls on Piesse's shares—Nothing was decided In the matter. There was a disouseion in regard to the decision of Messrs Campbell and Matthewson, J P.’S, in regard to the collection of rates, the Board having been nonsuited In the ease against Mr Maude because the collector had not given security to the Board. Reference was made to the sections dealing with the matter, the Chairman saying that he felt convinced the judgment was wrong. Mr Matthewson said that he had thought the Act would allow another interpretation different to that given it, but the presiding Justice was strongly convinced that the view taken wtas a correct one, and as he (Mr Matthewson) was a member of the Board, lie had not cared to set himself in opposition to the other Justice. |