OHAU BRIDGE PROTECTION

Otaki Mail, 13 March 1922, Page 3

OHAU BRIDGE PROTECTION

CO-OPERATOTE SCHEME ENTERED INTO. “For the protection of the bridge over the Ohau river this Council agrees to liiul material and labour to carry out the. necessary work, and that, Mr Gorrie, senr., supervise such work free of

charge, as this work protects his property as well as the County bridge.” . The above was a motion moved by * Gr. Me Convoy at a meeting of the Horowhenua County Council on Saturday after having visited the scene earlier : in the morning in company with the chairman (Cr. Monk) and tli,e engin- ! eor. “That means that it is taken right out of the hands of our engineer and he is glad to have it that way,” said Cr. McLeavey.

Cr. Ryder characterised the arrangement as murderous that a man independent of the Council should be allowed to supervise a work for which the Council paid the whole of the expense.

The chairman: “If he does this the responsibility becomes liis. He says lie can do it. ’ ’

Cr. Ryder asked what assurance the Council would have that the work would be done effectively. They had none, he considered. The chairman said he could not conscientiously express an opinion whether it could be done permanently. Cr. Ryder said no work done there in the past had ever been done as it should have been. It t(as only natural that this work would be done in the same

manner as it was the same man. The chairman said Mr Gorrie’s idea was to put in seven crates and fascine the bank as well as binding and holding the protection work with anchors. As his own property was envoived it might be assumed that the work would bo done well, and the safety of the bridge would be assured in like degree. Cr. McLeavey said no man could say definitely that he could do the work to have permanent results, but whatever Mr Gorrie did do he would do well. Cr. Harkness: “He is not responsible though. Wo are the responsible party.”

After some further comment byCrs. Harkness and Ryder on these lines, Cr. McLeavey rose and suggested that, as these two knew more about it than himself he would withdraw the motion and let them make a better arrangement.

The two councillors mentioned at once replied that tlieir comment was purely in the matter of friendly criticism with the object of making the arrangement as satisfactory as possible. Cr. Harkness said that nevertheless a weak point presented itself to him in that the Council had no call on Mr Gorrie if the work was unsatisfactory. The chairman: “He is doing it to protect his own property.” “But supposing the work is no good ’ ’ “Then we Avon 't pay.” “Oh. if you can withhold payment its alright,” returned Cr. Harkness. The motion was then put to the meeting arid carried.