HARBOUR BOARD.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1364, 4 October 1883, Page 2

HARBOUR BOARD.

The usual fortnightly meeting of the above Board was held in ths Council Chambers on Wednesday evening. Present: His Worship, E. K. Brown (in the chair), and Members Townley, Lewis, Tutchen, Kenny, Joyce, Brown, Hepburn, Smith and Tucker. The minutes of the previous meeting were first read and confirmed. Outgoing Correspondence. The following outgoing correspondence was then read by tlie Secretary : —To Mr Seed, acknowledging receipt of circulars ; to Mr J. Drummond, stating cause of dismissal; to Mr Seed, enquiring as to Harbor Board grant. Incoming Cop.respondence. The following correspondence was then read by the Chairman : —From Mr Joyce, asking that his securities re Standard contract be transferred to Mr Croft; from Mr Croft, stating his willingness to accept the? same. It w'as resolved to comply with the request of Mr Joyce. From Mr Edwards, the Agent of the U.S.S. Company, asking to be allowed to erect a grating for overhauling the Snark on the opposite side of the river.

It was decided that permission be granted, subject to three months notice of removal. The copies of the deeds relating to the conveyance of the Waiongaruawai Block was then read.

Member Kenny proposed, and Member Lewis seconded, that the consideration of the copies stand over until the copies of the grants of the Foreshore to the Harbour Board have been received.—Carried.

Letter from Mr J. Drummond, re new wharfs, suggesting some slight modifications and alterations as follows :—

September 30th, 1883. To the Seo. of the Harbour Board, Gisborne.

Sir,—l have carefully gone over the plans and specifications of the works tendered for construction of new wharfs and stock yard, and have suggested one or two slight modifications to your Engineer, which I think will be improvements without adding to the cost, I have also pointed out to Mr Reynolds, the difficulty likely to arise with the contractor in reference to the alleged discrepancy between the tracing signed by the contractor and the original plans.

Before vacating office I would again urge upon your Board, the necessity for copies of the amended plans and specifications being forwarded to Wellington for deposit. I am, &0., John Drummond, Civil Engineer. As the letter referred to some portion of the Engineers Report, it was considered in conjunction with the same. Engineer’s Report. To the Chairman of the Gisborne Harbour Board. Sir, —I beg to report that I commenced my duties as Harbour Board Engineer on Sept. 2 l»t last. I have examined the plans and specifications of new wharf and stock yard. I find that the work, as at present designed, cannot be carried ont substantially and effectually. Certain modifications are necessary (most of which were pointed out to me by Mr Drummond). Their nature may be seen by comparing the accompanying sketch with the original plan. These alterations will entail extra cost. The contractor will carry them out for £35. I consider this to be a reasonable price. Attention, also, should be given to the fact that the present working drawings have not been approved by the Governor in Council, but deviate considerably from the tracings so approved. Section 159 of the Harbour’s Act, 1879, is stringent on this point. lam, &c., R. J. Reynolds, Civil Engineer.

Member Tutchen moved, and Member Lewis seconded, the adoption of the report, —Carried. The Chairman stated that at the time the alterations were made in the plans of the wharf, Member Townley strongly advised that the alterations should be submitted to Government, and the Engineer (Mr Drummond), then stated that no necessity whatever existed for any such measure, but now he turned round and stated that the sanction of the Government was absolutely necess-ry. Member Tucker thought that plans of the alterations should be submitted to the Government for their sanction, but that the work be proceeded with in the meantime, ’ The Engineer was asked to explain the alterations which had been made. It was shown that the new plan carried the wharf lower down than the original one which had been submitted to Government and approved. Member Townley moved that copies of the plan bo not forwarded to Government. He thought they must go on at all risks. He was sure that going on with the work involved far less risk than the plan of sending to Wellington now. Assuming that any objection was eventually raised by the Government it could only apply to the stockyard, and he was sure the deviation from the original plan was so small that no possible objection could be taken to it. He would move that no further notice be given to the Government, and that the work be proceeded with at once. Member Tutchen, in seconding the motion, said he did not see how they could mend matters now. He agreed with the last speaker that it was the best plan to go on with the work. Member Tucker, in moving an amendment, thought it most sensible to go on with the work. At the same time ne wished that notice of the alterations be sent to Government with a letter of explanation stating that the work was being proceeded with. Member Smith seconded the amendment.

Member Kenny said he should vote for Member Townley’s motion. It was best to take the least objectionable course, and he thought Member Townley’s motion was the best. He thought, the deviation from the original plan so insignificant that it was extremely unlikely that Government would interfere in the matter.

The Chairman thought it beet to go on with the work. At the same time he thought it better to ask the sanction of Government to the alterations. Member Lewis thought the application to Government a dangerous experiment. He thought it best to go on with the work and take no further notice.

Member Tutchen thought the alterations so small that there was no necessity to take any notice of it. Member Joyce thought Member Townley's motion the best method of dealing with the matter. He had at first felt inclined to second Captain Tucker’s amendment, but he could now plainly see that the best plan would be to go on with the work and take no further notice of the matter. In the event of the Government eventually raising any objection to the alteration when the wharfs were finished, it could riot possibly place them in any worse position than they would be at present. He should support Member Townley’s motion. The amendment having been first put it was lost.

Member Townley’s motion was then put and carried.

Mr Drummond's letter was then considered. Mr Drummond said he would litre to make an explanation with regard to his letter, if he did not pester the Board too much. The Chairman said he would not allow Mr Drummond to speak if he was impertinent. Mr Joyce thought it would only be fair to hear Mr Drummond. He did not think Mr Drummond meant to be impertinent. He thought Mr Drummond should be heard. The Chairman said that Mr Drummond evidently intended his remsrks to refer to some letter that had appeared in the Standard. The letter was not under discussion now.

Member Joyce moved that Mr Drummond be heard in explanation. They could hear and then decide as to the matter. Member Tutchen seconded this motion, as he wished to hear what Mr Drummond had to say. Carried.

Mr Drummond said he only wished to point out that the alterations proposed were absolutely necessary. With respect to sending the plans of the alterations down for the approval of Government the Board had no option. They were absolutely compelled to take the step, as it was {imperative on them Io do so. The work could be gone on with in the meantime.

Member Townley wished to know whether there were not some minutes on the book

showing that these piles must be driven according to contract. The Secretary stated that the contractor had been informed that he would have to put the six piles in. Member Lewis wished to know how the engineer made up the extra cost of £35. The Engineer was asked to explain, and did so. Payments. The following payment, were then passed: Wharfinger. salary, £5 ss: T, Adams, £1 18s 4d s J. W. Nolan, £B. By-Laws. The Secretary stated that h, thought it advisable that more than two hundred nopies of the by-laws be struck off. They had been to a large amount of trouble and expense in this matter, and if only two hundred copies were struck off they would before long have all the trouble and expense over again. Member Tiitohon proposed, and Monibar Townley seconded, that an extra two hundred copies be ordered.—Carried. The Secretary wished to know whether ho was to supply the Harbour Master with Copies free, and was instructed to supply him with a dozen copies at a time, uncording to requirements.

Member Kenny proposed, and Member Joyee seconded, that all members of the Board be supplied with a copy of the by-laws free, but that the public be charged Is per copy.—Carried.

This completed the business of the Harbour Board.

BOROUGH COUNCIL, The before named gentleman then resolved themselves into a special meeting of the Borough Council, Cr Townley in the chair. The Chairman then read the following communications from the County Council Gisborne, 29th September, 1883. Sib, —I have the honor to inform you that under instructions from this Council, I have inspected the tramway and plant upon main road (Ormond to Gisborne), and I am satisfied that it is in fair working order and condition as was required by the conditions under which the plant was lent to your Council. On behalf of the Cook County Council, I therefore give this certificate of taking over the property then lent to the Borough Council. I have, &0., G. J. Winter, C.E. Gisborne, 28th September, 1883. Sir,—l have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th inataut, in reference to taking over the tramway on main road, before making your final payment to your late contractor. lam directed to state that the County Engineer will give his certificate and take over the line as soon as the contractor has made some repairs of which he has been advised. With reference to the part of the tramway within the Borough, the Council expect that you will take up the rails and stack them in a convenient position. The neighbourhood of the cemetery has been suggested—but of this you will be further advised. I have, &c., John Warben, County Clerk.

Cr Tucker moved that, in conformity with a previous resolution, all penalties with respect to Oxenham’s contract be remitted. Carried.

Cr Joyce wished to know whether it was compulsory that the rails should bo stacked outside the town.

The Chairman stated that it was just possible that the rails wonld not be required to be taken up at all.

His Worship stated that there was nothing in the agreement binding the Borough to take up the rails, but ho had thought it bettor to agree to this so as to get the matter settled, He had been informed by the engineer that the cost would not be over £l5, but lie thought it would cost much less than that, as the contractor for the job would have the whole of the sleepers for his trouble. It was resolved that the balance of Mr Graham’s account be paid.

This concluded the business of the meeting,