WESTPORT HARBOUR INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1865, 26 September 1913, Page 8

WESTPORT HARBOUR INQUIRY

INTERESTING EVIDENCE. > (By Teleeraph.—Press Association.) '' Westport, September 25. Before the -Harbour Board Commission "to-day H. A. Levastant, chief engineer of the Kubi Seddon, gave evidence that on December 24, 1903 (election year) be got a month's notice that his services were no longer required unless further advised. The notice culminated on January 31, and he was kept on from day to day for inspection. Ultimately he was called upon by the master of the ship to sign - an agreement for employment and discharge. At 2-1 hours' notice the dredge captain told him to make up bis time. He left the board's empoly—was pushed out of the engine-room; Costs then wont up at the rato of per month. Ho was tho only man appointed to the E-übi Seddon under the by-laws, that is, application Slaving been advertised for the position. He considered he was senior to all tho engineers except Mr. M'Diarmid. There were absolutely no complaints against him. He received a letter from the engineer regretting this temporary discharge, owing to retrenchment in dredging work. He received testimonials from tho secretary endorsed by Mr. Young. He was not asked to take a lower position. He would have dona so. His junior was kept on after he was dismissed. On Mr.. M'Diarmid's seniority he should have been ohief and witness second. Ho would not have taken tilno position of third. "Witness was off a month. He asked the board to reconsider 'his dismissal, and had intended to interview the Minister for Marine and show him . how things were going. Witness could fee any reasons but political for his dismissal. He was a supported of Mr. Munro. He could not think of any of Mr. Mnnro's supporters -in the dredging. flotilla who we-o kept on. He and M'Clcan (the onlv other man dismissed) were supporters of Mr. Munro. The general opinion was Wiat he was politically victimised. It was said he was ono of the first who would have to go, and he took the precaution to get tho testimonial. George Griffiths, a member and exchairman of the board, considered -the county where revenue came from should have tho -main representation on the board. He thought tho breakwater should not go on any father until, the effect of tho dredging -was observed. If trado wararnted, tho floating basin could bo rrorked, to advantage. He considered the beard had paid too high for plant from the Railway Department. Witness stated that he had a suspicion that places were made for men, but could not prove it. He did not see anything wrong in letting tho plant to Mr. Foster, for circumstances prevented it being paid for. He was guarantor of contract with G. Martin. He dealing with Foster was not good business. .T. H. Greenwood. ex-Mayor and a mem-' her of the board for six years, gave evidence concerning various transactions of tlie board with which he had expressed approval, and stated generally that the administration by past boards had been bad largely on ac-count of men being on the board who had no time to attend to its affairs. D. Dalgleish, branch manager of tine ILS.S. Company, condemned- tho etalths. Ho thought Hie TO-csent wharfage charges all right, fie did not favour the floating basin. J. F. Bryan) handed in a return of sawn timber from 18 different loss. This concluded' tho evidence, and 1 the Commission leaves overland to-morrow, en route for Wellington, v;here Uhieiy sit next Friday.