BRIDGE PRESIDENT RESIGNS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1049, 13 August 1930, Page 1

BRIDGE PRESIDENT RESIGNS

HARBOUR PROJECT RANKS DIVIDED RESOLUTION OF NO-CONFIDENCE PASSED FOLLOWING the carrying of a resolution of no-coniidence in Mr. R. H. Greville as president of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Association, Mr. Greville announced his resignation at a meeting last evening. Much of a pointed discussion concerned negotiations with a Mr. Robinson, who offered the association £2,000,000 to build the bridge, and the proposal to have the association form a company to carry out the construction.

Surprising charges were made against the president by Mr.' T. C. Pow, the mover of the resolution of no-confidence, and the seconder, Mr. C. H. M. Wills. Mr. Greville replied at length, declaring that the group of members opposing him was simply trying to push through the associa* tlon the proposal to form a company, after those members had been working behind the association’s back. The motion was carried by 22 votes to eight, and Mr. Greville then announced his retirement, to take effect from the meeting, adding that he would continue to advocate the harbour bridge.. Mr. Greville occupied the chair at the beginning, but said that, as his conduct or policy had been questioned by the committee, it would be proper to elect another chairman. Mr. J. 11. Tonar was elected to this position, and, in reply to questions, said it was scarcely possible to exclude the Press from a general meeting.

In moving his notice of motion, which was recently before the committee, saying that the meeting “having lost till confidence in Mr. Greville, he be called upon to resign immediately from his position as president,” Mr. Pow said he had been compelled to raise the question at a public meeting, because Mr. Greville could not be induced to have the question dealt with by the committee. The mover criticised Mr. Greville for writing letters and holding interviews on behalf of the association without the sanction of the committee, and de dared that Mr. Greville was attempting to secure, for a few persons outside the association, a charter to build the bridge privately, though the committee was sponsoring the formation of a company of the association. Mr. Pow went on to say that Mr. Greville had done much to prejudice the favour shown by the Minister of Marine, the Hon. J. B. Donald, for the association. Mr. Donald had declared himself to be in favour of the formation of a company by the association, but, following a letter which Mr. Pow said Mr. Greville had written, though no copy had been produced, the Minister had replied saying he was sorry certain members of the association were attempting to form a small company. This was a mis-statement of fact, Mr. Pow declared, as the securing of a charter was Mr. Greville’s idea, outside the association, while the association was only attempting to enter entirely into a company. Mr. Pow criticised Mr. Greville for having received £35 of the funds suoscribed for counsel’s fee, in presenting the association’s case before the Royal Commission. LETTER TO MINISTER “If ever we have had what I may term a tactless blunderer, we have it in our president,” declared Mr. Pow in referring to the change in the attitude of the Minister of Marine. Mr. Pow next dealt with a letter sent by Mr. Greville to Wellington on the possibility of having the association conduct an art union "for preliminary funds for the bridge project.” This was against the wish of the association, though there would be no objection to having an art union for the bridge itself. Mr. Pow referred to negotiations in Auckland with a Mr. Robinson, stated to be a millionaire who had offered the association a sum up to £2,000,000 at 5 per cent, at 95, for 40 or 50 years, subject to the guarantee of interest by the State. An unsatisfactory feature, said Mr. Pow, was that Mr. Robinson would submit nothing in writing; the only reference he produced was a cheque of £250,000 stated to represent a loan to a government in the Malay States. However, the committee communicated the details of the offer in a letter to the Prime Minister, but, said Mr. Pow, Mr. Greville had taken it upon himself to add certain statements to the letter. He had said: “Both my association-and the group offering the finance consider that, in the fifth year, the bridge would show a profit. The guarantee, therefore, would only be called upon during the first five years. My association considers that an average contribution of, say, £60,000 by the Highways Board for five years would be all that would be required. This would be equivalent to a straight out contribution of £250,000.” These statements. Mr. Pow said, had been sent away without the knowledge of the committee. It was understood by the committee from Mr. Donald that there was not a

chance of receiving a contribution from the Government. Further, most members thought a bridge across the harbour would pay long before five years. Mr. Wills also dealt with the negotiations with Mr. Robinson. After the letter had been sent to Wellington he had been surprised to learn from Mr. Robinson that the London syndicate offered the £2,000,000 on the condition that it built the bridge. This condition was a surprise, for it meant, if the bridge could be built for £1,000,000, there would be a profit of £1,000,000 for the syndicate. Mr. Robinson said Mr. Greville knew of the condition. The committee then declined the offer, feeling Mr. Robinson represented no definite syndicate. GOOD WORK PRAISED The seconder said he supported the motion only with the greatest regret and repugnance, as Mr. Greville undoubtedly had done much for the bridge movement. When the company formation was being discussed, Mr. Greville had convinced the committee that he was working on his own account, said Mr. Wills. ‘ The black sheep of the association will give his side of the story,” said Mr. Greville, in reply. The president said he had drawn up a statement answering his critics but, unfortunately, he had lost it on the way to the meeting. Mr. Pow and Mr. Wills had been incorrect in their facts and were chronologically out of order. “I am not afraid of meeting anyone,” said the president. “I have the interests of the, association too much, at heart to go against the wishes of the majority and, if the majority desires, I shall resign on the spot. Only since the report of the commission was published has there been any unfriendliness bgtween myself and the committee. I say it is only disappointed members who are venting their spite on me.” There was applause when Mr. Greville pointed out that he had sent the idea of securing a charter and the suggestion of an association company together in a letter to the Prime Minister. What he had objected to was the action of private members of the association in approaching Mr. Donald. The suggestion that he intended to act on his own in forming a charter had come from a conversation with the secretary. Captain C. G. Ashdown, when both had suggested in an ordinary manner the names of probable directors. Nothing had been done. One of the definite proposals placed before the commission was the art union, and he considered he was in order in suggesting it to the Government to raise preliminary funds. “SHOCKING MANNER” Mr. Robinson had been treated in a shocking manner by the association. The last proposal from him was the calling for tenders among English firms, the lowest refutable tender to be accepted. That was perfectly fair. If the association went on with its proposal to form a company, an idea which would wreck the association, he would resign, no matter what the outcome of the present meeting would be. Mr. Greville indicated his tremendous amount of work for the association in the past three years. Referring to the £35, he said he considered that he, as junior counsel at the commission, was entitled to remuneration for his great amount of work. Mr. Greville declared that Mr. Wills had gone behind the back of the association in getting members to sign a company agreement. Mr. Donald had told him only that day that there was no chance of a small company securing authority to build the bridge. The members agreed with Mr. Greville that the Main Highways Board should contribute toward the bridge. Mr. Greville then characterised the motion of no-confidence as a “blind” in order to push the company proposal through the association. “No man has done more for- the bridge than I,” concluded Mr. Greville. After reviewing the statements of the three speakers, Mr. Tonar put the motion, which was carried on a show of hands