GISBORNE HARBOR BOARD

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1352, 6 September 1883, Page 4

GISBORNE HARBOR BOARD

The ordinary fortnightly meeting of the above Board was held in the Council Chambers on Tuesday evening. Present: His Worship (in the Chair), and members Townley, Chrisp, Lewis, Tutchen, Whimay, Brown, Hepburn, Smith, and Tucker. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. OUT-GOING COBBESFONDENCB. The following outgoing correspondence was read :—letter to J. Drummond, re notice, Commissioner of Crown Grants, re Waiongaruawai Block ; Allan M'Donald, M.H.R., re Harbor Board Grants ; Minister of Marine, re Bye-Laws; J. Bennett, re Tariff. Incoming Cobaespondence. Telegram from M‘Leod, re Bye-laws ; Marine Department, re Bye-laws ; from A. M. Smith, re Crown Grants. Crown Lands Office os follows i— To the Secretary Harbor Board, Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 23rd August, asking for a certificate copy of a Crown Grant for the Waiongaruowai Block, in favor of G. E. Read, and dated 25th April, 1871. In reply I have to inform you that a copy of the Grant can be obtained on payment of a fee of ten shillings, as required by the “ Crown Grants Act, 1866.” I have to point out however, that the Grant referred to by you (of 1871), has been superseded by another Grant issued on the 18th February, 1873. I am, &c., H. J. H. Elliot. The Secretary was instructed to acknowledge the communications, and to convey the thanks of the Board to Mr Elliot, for his information. He was also instructed to obtain copies of each of the conveyances, especially that one dated February 1873. Payments. Wharfinger’s fortnightly salary, £5 os ; C. H. 0. Webb, £7 15s. By-Laws. Member Lewis proposed, that 200 copies of the by-laws be printed in phamplet form. Carried.

The Secretary here informed the Board, that the law required that two Boards, one at the Wharf and one at the office, should be erected with the tariff legibly painted thereon. Member Brown moved, and member Hepburn seconded, that tenders be called for the construction and painting of two boards, tenders to be in by next Tuesday.—-Carried. Member Whinray moved, and Member Lewis seconded, that the boards be 6 x 8 feet in size, and letters one inch.—Carried. The Chairman moved, and Member Chrisp seconded, that a wire be sent to Napier asking what description of board would be required. Member Whinray said the instructions were plain enough, and he did not see the necessity of sending to Napier for any information. On the m otion being put it was lost. Extbaobdinaby Business. Member Tutchen said that he must again bring before the notice of the Board the matter of the advertisements being displayed too much. He had been accused of doing this because ho had been pen-pricked and ink-bespattered by the Standard, but he would appeal to Mr Baldwin as to whether he did not tell him before the last meeting that he was go The Chairman here ruled Member Tutchen out of order, and asked him if he had any motion to make with respect to the matter, and if not the Board would proceed with the business, as that was not a court of law to argue the matter in. Member Tutchen moved that the Secretary be empowered to give instructions with each advertisement as to the space the same was to occupy. Member Tucker seconded the motion as he thought it a very proper one, He ccrtinly thought the matter should be left in the hands of the Secretary, Member Whinray said he did not «ee that the Borough advertisements were displayed more than some others. Member Townley said he did not exactly know’ what was wanted, He could not see that there was any complaint of undue display. He thought the matteq could be left to the Secretary as before. Member Tucker said he was sorry any mem bar of the Board had thought fit to enter into any justification of his conduct there. If Member Tutchen had brought the matter forward from a conscientious principle that was a sufficient justification. He thought the matter should be left in the hands of the Secretary. It was carried that the matter be left in the hands of the secretary as hitherto. The Secretary said that he never left one single word in the advertisements that could possibly be left out. They were reduced to the smallest space consistent with the sense they were intended to convey. Strong-room to New Oefices. Member Whinray wished to know whether the erection of the strong-room to the new offices had been stopped, and if so, why? The Chairman understood that the work had been stopped. Member Tutchen said that the Chairman of the Public Works Committee and himself, thinking that the engineer’s time had expired, and that no one was looking after the job, and finding that the cement was nothing like what it should be, had ordered the work to be suspended. Member Whinjay thought that the Public Works Committee had acted in a most reprehensible manner, and had exceeded their duty in this matter. He thought it was anything but right that one or two members of the Committee should go and stop the work without saying a word to the other members. If they had thought anything was wrong, why had not a meeting of the Committee been called ’ The Chairman explained that he had thought it necessary to keep the Engineer on for another month. He had found this necessary, so as to obviate the Borough being left without an engineer to look aft< r the work. Member Tutchen said that, as a member of the Committee, he could say that they had never interfered with the work. The Chairman asked the Engineer what he knew about the matter. The Engineer stated that he had not seen the work. He had arranged with the architect to look after the job, and had, therefore left it to him. The Chairman said this was very unsatisfactory. The Engineer was clearly responsible for the proper carrying out of the work. Member Lewis asked whether the cement had been made according to specification. Member Whinray said he objected strongly to one or tw T o members going and stopping any work without notifying the same to the other members. Member Townley said that no blame could possibly be attached to the Chairman of the Public Works Committee. He had been informed that the cement being used was not in proper proportions according to contract. In fact it was being used mixed in the proportion of one of cement to about seven of sand, whereas it should be one to throe. The

Chairman of the Public Work Committee did not know that the Engineer’s engagement had been continued for another month, and thinking that there was no ona to look after the work, had thought it perfectly justifiable, as he saw the work was not being done satisfactorily, to suspend it until some duly qualified person could be appointed to inspect. He (member Townley) thought the Chairman had acted perfectly right, and was justified in his action. The architect, Mr Finneran, could not say that the material being used was of proper quality. The cement crumbled to pieces between the fingers, and certainly appeared very inferior. He must say that the Chairman of the Public Works Commit* tee had acted in a very commendable manner. Member Hepburn said that the Chairman of Public Works had asked him to give his opinion as to the quality of the cement being used, but he refused to do so. Mr Hubble had then been called to give his opinion, he being a practical man and a qualified judge of the material, and Mr Hubble had stated that the proportion was at the very best as 6to 1, He (member Hepburn) noticed that the County Council work was being filled in with sand instead of concrete, he would be very sorry to see the work of the Borough done in the same way. Ho had tried the cement mixed with the specified proportion of sand—viz,, 3 to 1, and he found it turn out a fine hard solid cement entirely different to that being used. Member Whinray said he would ask that the Engineer inspect the work and report to ' the next meeting. Member Lewis said he must object to this 1 constant asking the Engineer to do his duty. Why did he not see to the work. He moved that the Engineer inspect the work and see whether the contract is being properly carried out, and if so to go on with it, but if not i that the work be done over again, and the i matter reported to the next meeting. Member Brown, in seconding the motion, said that the Engineer had the power and authority to determine whether the work was according to specification, and if not, to order it to be done over again. It did not appear as though he had troubled himself much about the matter.

On the motion being put it was carried. Public Wharf Dues. A motion was carried that the Secretary be instructed to write to the Collector of Customs, asking that he do not sanction the landing of goods at any other place than the proper public wharfs. Tenders For Clerk of Works. The following tenders for the above appointment were then opened : J. E. Harris, per week, whole time, £3 15s ; A. Thompson, do., do., £2 15s ; R. M. Skeet, do. do., £3 j E. Pierce, do., do., £3 10s ; A. Y. Ross, do., do., £3 12s; T. E. Shirley, four hours per day, £2 per week ; H. Clayton, £2, halftime—£3 full time ; W. J. Quigley, £1 15s per week, portion of time, or 2i per cent on cost of work ; C. C. Ballantyne, £3 10s per week, and H. Quinlan, £3 3s per week. Member Brown moved, and Member Tutchen seconded, “ That the tender of Mr Thompson, being the lowest, and he being a thoroughly competent man, be accepted. Member Lewis moved, and Member Townley seconded, “ That the tender of Mr A. Y. Ross be accepted, as he was, without doubt, a thoroughly competent man, and would devote the whole of his time to the work. Member Tucker thought that before proceeding further, the Board had better consider whether it had not better engage the services of some of those who could devote a portion of their time to the work, and whether that would not meet the wants of the Board. Member Whinray said he thought it fur better that a man should devote the whole of his time to the subject. That point had been decided at the previous meeting. Member Townley said he understood that the original motion was that the Clerk of the Works be there all the time. That was fully discussed before. Member Tucker proposed, and member Smith seconded, that the tender of Mr Clayton be accepted Member Townley said the first thing was for the Chairman to rule whether the applications for part employment were to be entertained or not. Member Whinray said it was plainly understood before, that the whole of the time of applicants was required. Member Hepburn followed in the same manner, and said that he fully understood that the whole time of a clerk should be given to the work. Member Brown understood the same. The chairman moved that the whole time of applicants should be given. On the votes being taken, they were ;— Ross, 2 j Clayton, 3 ; and Thompson, 3. The Chairman gave his casting vote in favor of Mr Thomspon. Mr Shirley’s tender was declared informal.