Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 898, 22 May 1903, Page 4

In moving the motion Mr Matthewson said tljey had nil the details of the work complete, ancl what they required was a practical overseer to get the best work done. The time would come when they would want a first-class engineer, and when that time came they could get him. But that time had not yet arrived. What they wanted now was a good working overseer. For the work in hand it was probable Sir John Ooode would not be able to do better, except he might order more expensive machinery. Mr Harding said ho assumed they were at present confining their attention to river work, and a good practical man was what they required. He was not sure that the salary proposed was high enough, but ho was satisfied they would get a good man locally. Their attention, it seemed to him, should now be confined to river improvement. Mr Matthewson said he was not prepared to make any alteration as to salary. Mr Siovwright said it would mean they would all have to bo more or less engineers ; they would have no qualified man to rely on, and they would have divided opinions. He would wash his hands of the whole thing by voting against it. It would bo a penny wise and pound foolish policy. Mr Whinray supported Mr Sievwright’s contentions. It was absolutely necessary they should have some competent head responsible to the Board. They should also havo a good foreman, who could give good effect to the work devised. Had he thought the matter over ho would have supported Mr Sievwright’s proposal Mr Clark said that lie had considered and made up his mind before he came to the Board, and would support Mr Matthewson’s motion. The Board seemed to have made up its mind to do most of the work under day labor, and at least they could give tho proposal made a trial. What thoy wanted was a man who would get tho best work out of tho men employed. Tho Chairman said bo thought they should have a competent engineer. They wore about to undertake tbo most risky - part of tho groyne, in which there was fine engineering work. To show tho variation of opinion, there was T6OOO difference in prices when tenders were called. They would save the salary three times over by having a competent engineer. Mr Whinray : Hear, hear. Continuing, tho Chairman said it was a most risky piece of work they had to do, and it would pay them to havo it undertaken by a qualified engineer. In reply, Mr Matthewson said he agreed that they wanted a competent overseer, who would havo tho responsibility of handling tbo men, discharging anyono who did not give satisfaction. The man would have all tho details which he could to work to. Mr Sievwright: How can you hold him responsible when he is not qualified } Mr Matthewson said they had plenty of men in the district who had carried out

first-class work, such as the construction of bridges. Mr King was a good draughtsman, but apparently through being too soft-hearted ho did not get the full amount of work out of the men. Mr Whin ray said ho considered they should also have a foreman ; the meeting was called to appoint an engineer, Captain Tucker said that meant that the motion was out of order. There was no motion to appoint an engineer. Mr Sievwright then repeated his motion which had lapsed, putting it in the form of an amendment. It was then agreed to alter Mr Matthowson’s motion to commence “ that no engineer bo appointed at present." “ There is no virtue that I can see,” said Captain Tucker, ‘‘in having an engineer.” What had it ever saved them from ? Had they, he asked, ever been free from doubt in their own minds ? Had they been free from doubt and cavilling by the public ? Had they not fallen into errors ? Had there ever been a time when anybody could say that they had not fallen into error ? He said there had never been such a time ? When ho was on the Board before, while he was off it, and when he came back to it, thoro had been errors, often repeated, to the present moment. No one who was truthful could gainsay that. Therefore there was no virtue in an engineer. As for a responsible head, was there a single member who would not tako the responsibility '} “Ho you,” coutinued Captain Tucker, “ say that wo are here to devise certain schemes, and if they are a failure to put the responsibility on the ongincer'? Not at all. Wo kavo mado mistakes, and will continue to do so. I think wo arc all munly enough to say if wo are in the wrong. I would not think of pointing to the engineer. Wkiio he is in our employment, and were ho present hero, I might say something, but wbilo he is not here I would say the ‘ responsible ’ head is borne on the shoulders of oach member of the Board. That is undoubted. If anybody looks round and reflects that a good deal of the dissatisfaction that exists in tho minds of the public, is in regard to the work itself—not the devising or planning of it, but the actual carrying out of the work. Even tho dredging and filling-in work at the wharf caused dissatisfaction, but that is hardly a matter chargeable to

the Engineer. It seemed to me that what wo required there was an overseer of works who would push tho work ou as rapidly as ho could. I have no doubt that this is the case with other works.

The dissatisfaction has rather been in the carrying out o£ tho work than in devising aucl planning it. If, however, tho Board at any tune feel the need of an engineer, it would not be a difficult matter to get one. No - doubt there are gentlemen in the place who could give us as good advice as ever wo had before, I support this motion because I think it touches the spot —it is the very thing we want.” Mr Sievwright proposed as an amend-

ment, “That a marine engineer he appointed at a salary of T4OO a year.” He jokingly said that Captain Tucker’s

oratorical effort bad left him that lie did not know whether he stood on his head or his heels ; but still, in his sober senses he considered that a foreman of works was not the man to carry out the responsible work of a public body. (Mr Whin ray : Hear, hear.) It would be the biggest mistake they ever made. Mr Whiuray seconded the amendment. They must have a responsible head, for not only the wharf work but for the groyne. Mr Matthewson : That is what I say. Mr Whiuray said ho considered it absolutely necessary to have both, respon- j iible engineer and overseer of works. If ;hey carried out the policy suggested it vould be a great mistake, and they would ind it out in two years. Mr Harding said they all agreed they houia have an engineer when the proper ime came. ;The amendment was then put and lost, hose for being Messrs Sievwright, W?hiuray and the Chairman. Against : Messrs Harding, Matthewson, Clark and Tucker. The motion was then carried, the older of voting being the same, of course reversed. It was agreed that applications should be in by the June meeting, the specifications to be placed before the ordinary meeting nest week.