HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 33, 8 February 1905, Page 6

HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT.

o THE FERRO-COXCEETE QUESTION. At the meeting of the Auckland Harbour Board yesterday afternoon Mr J. W. Walker moved:—"That the Board's solicitors be requested to give their opinion as to the validity or otherwise of the patents held in New Zealand by the Ferro-Conerete Co. and the Monier Co." The mover stated that he thought it desirable that the Board should have fair competition and as much of it as possible if the ferro-con-crete was to be u'ed. It was the duty of the Board to iind out if fhe patents were valid so that others might tender if they wore not. Tlie Hon. E. MitehelsoT- seconded, thinking it a step in the right direction. Hs believed that their solicitors could find out by applying to the Dunedin City Council, th? Auckland and other councils having contributed to a fund raised to decide the question in Dunedin. He fancied that the patents proved invalid. Air Calder said that the matter would nave to be determined in the Supreme Court. Kr .Matchelson said that had aiready been done in Dunedin. Mr CahJer: Only in a small case. The Chairman did uot think it the Board's duty to determine the validity of the patenta. They had asked for v nders, and had received two. If other people wished to tender they should lind out fcr themselves whether they could manufacture fcrro-concrete or not. He believed the contractor was already taking steps in this direction. Mr Walker said that they mnst have competition. It was wrong to allow one company to obtain the work by reason of patent rights which perhaps did not e_\ist. The Chairman said that the Board had a tender from another company. Mr Walker replied that the Monier process was much dearer, and the FerroConcrete Co. knew that the Monier Co. could not tender at the same rate. Mr Philson was opposed to the motion, declaring that it had been brought on to hamper the Board's improvement scheme. Mr Walker had from the beginning taken a hostile atitude as regarded the works. The question of the cracks in the piles was one Mr Walker had taken a great interest in. Mr Walker rose to a point of order. Mr Philson had said something untrue. No member of the Board could say that he had ever spoken a word or taken any interest in the cracked piles. Mr Philson: Then you should be ashamed of yourself for neglecting your duty as a member of the Board. Mr Walker had allied himself with the obstruction party, and the motion was an attempt to hamper the progress of the work. It was only a continuation of the position that Mr Walker had adopted from the beginning. Mr Walker, with some warmth, repeated that he had had nothing to do with the cracked piles, and denied that he had been hostile to the FerroConcrete Company. He was in favour of ferro-concrete if it could be made to answer, because he saw plainly that if it was successful it must result in enormous saving. Mr Philson: I never said you are hostile to the ferro-concrete; I said you are hostile to the scheme. Mr Walker: You don't know what you said. Mr Philson: No, you don't. In replying, Mr Walker contended that it was thrir duty to consult their solicitors on the matter. The work should be done as cheaply and effectively as possible, and the only way to do that was to have as much competition as could be obtained. He did not bring on the motion by reason of hostility up the Ferro-Conerete Co., but in the public interest; but there were members of the Board, and Mr Philson was one, who could not understand that attitude. Thcv had never been guilty of it themselves, or they would not get up and make such false statements. On the voices the motion was declared lost, but on a division beino- taken it was carried by sLx votes t° jour— Messrs Walker, Mitchelson. Alis„i Parker, Grey and Glover supporting and Messrs Basley, Philson, Lax on „§ the chairman opposing.