THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1881. THE BOARD OF CONSERVATORS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2180, 19 February 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1881. THE BOARD OF CONSERVATORS.

The Board of Conservators appears to be developing strong conversational powers. At its meeting on Tuesday last, the amount of talking got through was something astonishing. At one juncture, we are told, “ the Board relapsed into conversation between the chairman and the members, and after this had lasted for some twenty minutes, the Board resumed business, some members having spoken half a dozen times and the chairman about twenty.” And so on at intervals, we are informed, further conversations ensued of varying length. Of course, we have no wish whatsoever to unnecessarily pry into the manner the Board conducts its business, but still a suspicion cannot but flit across one’s mind, when one sees how its powers of talk are growing, that a hint might not bo out of place that the amount of solid work done by any body is generally in an inverse ratio to the quantity of breath expended. Brevity, we are told, is the soul of wit, and if tho chairman could have compressed into one or two utterances the twenty dicta with which he favored the Board, we cannot but think that it would have gained by tho change. It would, at all events, have then had an example before it that it would appear to require. We have always thought that

almost the main duty o£ a chairman is to force the remaining members to stick to the point of any argument. If a chairman possesses the tendencies of a “ Conversation Sharpe,” the result is frequently not pleasing. “ Conversation Sharpe ” as a society man was all that could bo required. He was the delight of dinner tables, and has left behind the fame of being one of the kings of talkers. Of his private history other than as a talker we feel compelled to say that wo know nothing, but we trust that if ho was on a Board formed to keep the River Thames within its duo limits, he kept his anecdotes in reserve during the sitting.

Notwithstanding tha peculiar and conversational thoroughness with which matters in general were discussed, there is one point on which wo must most distinctly differ from the Board, and that is the reduction of the salary of overseer. And we think that the public will agree with us when they realise what are the duties and responsibilities of that gentleman. Hitherto the overseer has been paid £2OO per annum, including the keeping of a horse. Now, the field of observation which is under his charge extends at least thirty miles over river beds, and he has besides to attend the meetings of the Hoard and be at the beck and call of members of the Board when required. He is forced to live also in a place very considerably out of the way. So that, taking all these things into consideration, £SO would net, bo too much for his travelling expenses. This left him, under the old arrangement, £l5O per annum as salary, or, speaking roundly, £3 per week. Now, the overseer’s duties are extremely onerous and responsible, and on his faithful performance of them depends, to a large extent, the successful carrying out of the Hoard’s schemes. He must bo a man of character, a man of energy and a man well acquainted with the work in hand. We say a man of character, because he has no one to supervise him, and opportunities of shirking his work occur every day. The work is monotonous, and it requires a stern sense of duty to travel in all weathers over miles and miles of the roughest river-bed, and to face the howling nor’-westers that prevail in that quarter, at the very time when a keen eye has to be kept on the river. Then again, as far as knowledge of his work is concerned, the overseer is perfectly competent, and has for years been engaged in this particular lino. The late Mr Potts strongly recommended his appointment, and there could he no better guarantee for his capacity. The Board, indeed, do not even hint that they are at all dissatisfied with anything that he has done. Now we may fairly ask, is £3 per week too much to pay a man when he has duties to perform, and performs them so conscientiously and so well. The Chairman of the Hoard declared at the meeting that if applications were invited for a new man, the street would be crowded with applicants. Of course it would. If a Premier was advertised for, all the loafers in New Zealand would apply for the post. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. That question is—is £3 per week too much to pay for a man who mnst of necessity he a man of character, who thoroughly knows his work, whose duties are very responsible, and who has hitherto done his work most satisfactorily. We say, unhesitatingly—No; and we are glad to see that Mr White, at all events, agrees with us.

Nor can we understand on what principle the Board were moving when the reduction in the overseer’s salary was proposed. It was no part of a general scheme of economy, because nothing had been settled as the general finance of the Board. A little before the matter of the salary came on, wa read that the Board, after, as usual, having “ relapsed into a private conversation ” as to the financial state of the Board, agreed, on the suggestion of the Chairman, to remit the matter to the finance committee. If the reduction of the overseer’s salary was a matter of pure finance, surely the report of the committee might have been waited for. The measure appears to be a small economy adopted almost as an afterthought. There was as little method in it as in the general way of conducting the business of the meeting. And we feel confident that public feeling will not 'go with the Board in the matter, but will side with Mr, White.