HARBOR BOARD.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 83, 5 March 1884, Page 2

HARBOR BOARD.

The usual fortnightly meeting of the above Board was held last night in the Borough Council Chambers, Lowe Street. Present—His Worship the Mayor (Captain T. W. Porter) in the chair, and Members Townley, Lewis, Tutchen, Joyce, Hepburn, Smith, and Tucker. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed, when the following correspondence was read :— OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE. Letter to the Secretary of Napier Harbor Board; to Wharfinger re increase in salary. IN-COMING CORRESPONDENCE. The following telegram re foreshore grants was then read “ To Captain Porter, Chairman Gisborne Harbor Board. “ Grant Gisborne foreshore sent to Wellington for execution by His Excellency the Governor. Not yet retured. Will write you when received. “ D. A. Tole.” In answer to Mr. Hepburn, the Chairman explained that all such matters had to be matured in the Crown Grant Office, Auckland and then forwarded to Wellington for approval. The grants might be expected in a short time, perhaps next week. Mr. Tucker wished that a delayed wire be sent to Mr. Tole asking for a draft plan of the grants per next mail. This having been agreed to the following letter was read re the ferry difficulty :— Gisborne, 25th Feb., 1884. To the Secretary of the Gisborne Harbor Board. Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th inst., in which you refer me to a clause of the Education Act for a reply to my grievance in the matter of the refusal of a free ferriage for one of my children attending the public school in Gisborne. I have looked into the clause (84—Part 1), and fail to see where it bears upon my question. I now respectfully ask that my grievance be laid before the Harbor Board at its earliest convenience. My reason for this course is that I think I should have made my request known to that body in the first instance, and not to the Borough Council. I complain that your contractor, the public ferryman on the Turanganui River, refuses to ferry a child of mine, aged 16, across the river free of charge. I base my right of a free ferry for my child on the clause of the Public Works Act of 1882 (sec. 107, clause 5) that plainly states the whole case. Praying for your reply.—l am, <fcc., G. 11. Wilson. The Act having been referred to, Mr. Lewis said the Education Act defined a schoolchild at from five to fifteen. The Board ought to protect its servants, and the ferryman had his contract. The Chairman thought that the girl being permitted to attend school made her a “child” within the moaning of the Public Works Act. He should think the child should be taken over free. Every effort should be made to promote education. Mr. Joyce thought the conditions of the contract would preclude the Board from acquiescing to the request. The contract having been referred to, the Clerk said there was no mention of exemptions. Mr. Tucker thought Miss Wilson had the right to free ferriage. It seemed to him that

all a child had to say was, “ I am a child going to school,” to entitle it to exemption. He dare say that this was a case where the ferryman only wished to do what was right. No doubt the ferryman would cheerfully acquiesce if the Board decided against him. It was an important question in its future bearing to the public. They should look beyond this case.

The Chairman said the onus of proof of exemption laid with the person claiming exemption. Mr. Tucker thought the Board should express an opinion. He could not see any harm in such a course. He would suggest the motion, “ That the Board is of opinion that any child going to or from school is free, but the Board finds some difficulty in deciding at what age such exemption ceases. The Board would refer Mr. Wilson to the 108th clause of the Public Works Act.”

Mr. Lewis seconded the motion, which was unanimously carried. The Chairman said that it really was not in the province of the Board to pass an opinion, and instanced a previous case where the ferryman (Ledger) had a dispute with Mr. Wilson for using nis own private boat. The ferryman lost that action. engineer’s report. Harbor Board Office, March 4, 1884. To the Chairman of the Gisborne Harbor Board. Sir, —I beg to report as follows Wharfinger's Ojfice. —This is nearly finished, and will be placed in position to-morrow. Depth of Water at the Wharf. — I find, both from observation and from information given me by the Harbor-master, that the silting continues, and that the difficulty of getting vessels alongside or away from the wharf is increasing. It was suggested at the last meeting that some sort of temporary or experimental frame might be erected with the view of scouring the channel near the wharf. I think that such a structure might be put up with advantage. A line of whattled stakes, say 6 inches diameter and 4 feet apart, driven as far as possible into the mud, would probably stand long enough to make it clear whether the required effect was produced. The tops of the stakes would be about 2 feet above low water. This structure could be strengthened if found efficient, and, on the other hand, could be easily (wholly or partially) removed if that were found necessary. Cost, £5O. The alternative is dredging. . I hear there is a Priestman’s dredge for sale at Invercargill. It might ba worth while to write and enquire the price. I have the honor to be, &c., R. J. Reynolds, Harbor Board Engineer. The Chairman s aid this matter required the most serious consideration. Mr. Tutchen thought the wing was their only chance as dredging would absorb all their means. He had watched the current and saw that the very vessels lying there caused an eddy. Something must be done as the silt was accumulating very rapidly under the wharf. Mr. Joyce thought the Engineer’s suggestion should be acted upon at once, and the sooner something was done the better. In answer to Mr. Lewis, the Engineer said he would not, for obvious reasons, suggest that the stakes reach high-water mark. Mr. Tutchen would move “ The adoption of the report relating to this matter.” The Chairman said the matter might be left in the hands of the Public Works Committee. The expense was not very heavy. In seconding the motion, Mr. Smith said the matter was of urgent necessity, and he thought it might be left in the hands of the Engineer. Mr. Tutchen thought it very necessary to bring it to high-water mark, and to brace it with stays, and plank it with boards bolted through. Mr. Smith said this was one of those instances, where everyone knew more than the Engineer. He thought this small matter mightly safely be left to the Engineer. The Chairman thought it best to leave the matter in the hand of the Engineer, who would be responsible. Mr. Joyce had known many Engineers make mistakes, and begged to differ with Mr, Smith. They came there to express an opinion upon such subjects. He thought they had better adopt the Chairman’s suggestion. Mr, Tutchen thought he knew as much about these things as anyone, having had great experience in such matters on the diggings. The Clerk pointed out that the sanction of the Government must be first obtained before the wing could be constructed. Mr. Tucker moved that a rough draft of the work be forwarded next Friday, and an answer per telegram be requested. The suggestions having been embodied the motion was agreed to. It was also resolved to write and enquire the price of the Priestman’s dredge at Invercargill. payments. Skeet, £1 7s. 6d.; 9. Doleman, £1 ss. ; Wharfinger’s salary (2 weeks) £6 ; Wilkinson £3 12s. ; J. R. Morgan, £1 2s. This comprised all the business of the evening and the Board adjourned.

BOROUGH COUNCIL. A special meeting of the above Council was held after the termination of the Harbor Board business for the purpose of considering the Turanganui Bridge question. The same members were present. After explaining the position of the Borough with respect to the Government grant of £1,500, the Chairman stated that he had, with a view of ascertaining the feeling of Government as to the probability of any further assistance being afforded, made the following enquiry of the Minister of Public Works:— “Gisborne, 1—3—84. “ To the Minister of Public Works. “ Be grant of £1,500 for erection of Turanganui Bridge, vide letter No. 563. Owing Cook County Council withdrawing their application made jointly with this Council for same construction leaves Borough deficient about £l,OOO. If County renew application under 18 sec. of Act, contributing £250, will Government supplement £750 ? Borough most anxious to assure itself of Government liberal grant and proceed at once with work at once. A decided answer is not expected from you, but if reply favors possibility of further grant in due course work can proceed without delay. Please reply for information of next Council meeting next Tuesday. “ T. W. Porter, “ Mayor of Gisborne.” The following telegram had been received in reply to this: — “ 4th March, 1834. “To Captain T. W. Porter, Mayor of Gisborne. “ In reply to Turanganui Bridge no further grant can be made out of funds for this financial year, but I see no reason why balance should not be granted out of next year’s funds if you make application in due form before the 30th June next. “ E. Mitchelson, “ Minister for Public Works.” The Chairman said that, taking the answer in connection with his enquiry, there could be little doubt but what the additional grant would be obtained. The reply was very much fuller than he could possibly have hoped. Taking this view of the matter, they had only to produce £250 to get the remaining £750. Upon the strength of this, he did not think that they should hesitate for one moment in accepting the Government grant and of calling for tenders at once. If there was any difficulty whatever as to raising the required £250, he would guarantee the amount himself. Although the bridge had been set down at £4,000, that was only an outside estimate, and there could be no doubt but what a substantial bridge, meeting all their requirements, could be constructed for £3,000. He would undertake that the burgesses should not be called upon for one penny beyond the £5OO already agreed upon. He could not see how the County Council could possibly refuse under these circumstances. The £250 would be guaranteed by several gentlemen, and no further demand would be made upon the ratepayers. There could be no possible grounds for allowing the grant to lapse now. Cr. Hepburn wished to know how they were to act if, when they palled for tenders, they found the cost was £4,000, instead of £3,000. The Chairman said they would simply have to call for modified plans.

Cr. Tucker then proposed, and Cr. Smith seconded, “ That, on the understanding that the Turanganui bridge shall cost the burgesses nothing further than the liability of £5OO, already incurred, I beg to propose the work shall be’ undertaken.” After some arguments on the part of Mr. Joyce, who objected to the ratepayers being burdened any further, The Chairman went through the whole history of the agitation from the first, and pointed out the substantial benefit the bridge would be to the town. The first advantage accruing from the construction of the same was that it would give them a site for a wharf where there would be deep water and no silting-up; the next benefit would be that the Borough would be enabled to procure good metal from the Kaiti beach for the same cost as they were going to for so-called shingle, which was half sand. Another consideration was that, in the event of harbor works, it would be a necessary portion of the scheme. Again, it was the main road to the coast, and would bring all the traffic through the town. They were getting £1,500 for nothing, and in the present depressed state of affairs this should not be thrown away. (Hear, hear.) Why should this be let stop when they had not to go to the ratepayers for one penny more. The expenditure of this money in the place must surely be advisable in the present depressed state of trade. If the County Council would not come forward and provide the required amount, he would guarantee the £250 himself, as several had given their words to assist in furnishing the money—one gentleman having offered £lOO. But if it came to the worst he would pay the £250 himself sooner than it should be any burden to the ratepayers. Before he finished, and while on thia subject, he must say a few words with respect to a very misleading letter which appeared in the paper that evening. The writer had stated that Government had been appealed to twice, and on each occasion they had refused to grant more than £1,500. There was, so far as he knew, no record whatever of two applications, and as to their refusal to contribute more than £1,500, the present telegram received from the Minister of Public Works was the best refutation to such a statement. Although the estimate for the bridge had been for £4,000 they were not pledgedFtoTYspend that amount on it, and the Government would only be too pleased to see them get one for £3,000. They had been trying to get this bridge for years and years and now it was obtainable at last. Cr. Joyce thought the only valid argument in favor of the bridge was their being able to obtain metal. As for the breakwater scheme that was only imaginary, and with respect to the town extending to Kaiti, that was sheer folly at present. Cr. Tutchen was of opinion that the Natives should contribute one-half of the entire cost of the bridge as it would make their land over the other side so much more valuable. The town had no interest whatever on the other side. The Clerk explained that the Council had two chains from high-water mark, for which they got £6O of rates. Cr. Tutchen did not care for that, and would want a good guarantee that the ratepayers should not be called on before commencing the work, as if they once started the bridge they would have to finish it somehow. He thought the bridge was worth £5OO to the ratepayers and no more. Cr. Tucker explained that the very thing the Borough had been long striving for was to get the bridge constructed at a cost to them of £5OO, and now the opportunity for doing so presented itself they hesitated to avail themselves of it. After considerable further argument against the motion on the part of Members Joyce and Tutchen, and most ably combated by Cr. Smith and the Chairman, the motion of Cr. Tucker was put and carried unanimously. Resolutions were then passed that the Public Works Committee, in concert with the Engineer, get up all necessary data in the shape of plans, &c., and call for tenders. Also that a copy of the correspondence and resolution be forwarded to the County Council, and that his Worship and Cr. Townley attend the next meeting of the Council with a view of explaining the matter to that body. The meeting then closed.