TIMARU HARBOR BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2244, 22 August 1891, Page 3

TIMARU HARBOR BOARD.

At Wednesday’s meeting of the Timaru Harbor Board after reading the report of the Returning Officer that Mr W. Evans had been elected a member of the board, and noting that Mr Evans had taken his seat, The chairman made some trenchant remarks on criticisms which have been publicly made bn the board’s proceedings in regard to the shingle question, and on the engineer. He asked the board’s attention for a rew minutes. It was time someone spoke on the matter ho was going to refer to, and he thought it had better* be himself. He wished to ask ‘ members, in speaking of the board’s affairs in future, or malting any _ statements respecting the board’s affairs 3 to

be more careful that their statements were reasonably near the truth.—During the last two months the board had come to a final decision on an important question. He was entitled to call it a final decision, since it was arrived at after very mature consideration, and guided by the best advice, and since every member of the board rose voluntarily from his seat and expressed the opinion that the enquiry had been complete and satisfactory. Since the day that decision was thus carefully arrived at, the board had been subjected to most hostile criticism, —hostile in every sense of the word, because there had been no palliation, no impartiality whatever, it had been purely hostile. These attacks had been principally anonymous, and as such might have been passed over in silence; but lately statements had been made which were by no means anonymous; the authorship appeared to be acknowledged and the responsibility could not be disputed. He wished to avoid being more definite than was necessary, but probably the board would require him to be more explicit, and he therefore would point, amongst other instances, to a report in the Timaru Herald' of the 27th July. Of* course as fo the correctness of that report he could say nothing, except that so ar as he was* aware the reports in the Timaru Herald were generally admirably correct. That report was the report of a semi-public meeting, at which the first assertion made was one respecting the board’s intended extravagance. Then, as if by the way of illustration of the board’s extravagance, 'the statement was made that Mr 0, Y. o’Conor had recommended an expenditure of £85,000 on some particular scheme, and it appeared to have been the expressed opinion of the speakers on the occasion that the board should be restrained from such extravagance, and that it was necessary to put a good business man on the board, since the present board was sadly deficient in that material. These opinions would have had very little value if it had not not been for the central assertions of extravagance, and that Mr O’Conor had recommended an expenditure of £85,000. He was not aware that Mr O’Conor or any of the Commissioners had recommended anything of the sort. Quite the contrary, and no member of the board had even contemplated anything of the sort. Then there were reported through other channels statements which, intentionally or unintentionally, led the public to believe that the board contemplated the removal, or the endeavor to remove, the beach on the south side of the breakwater. That was another fallacy. It was totally incorrect. The board had never had any such idea in its head. It was not in the least necessary that they should be told the value of the beach—how it protects the mole and increases the shelter of vessels in the harbor. The board understood its value quite as well as anyone else. More than that, every member of the board would be perfectly willing to see the beach extended, say, 200 ft further along the permanent work—which would allow for another two years’ growth—provided always that they had first ascertained by practical experience their ability to check the advance of the shingle when it became absolutely necessary to do so. He thought, therefore, that whether the impression had been given to the public intentionally, maliciously, or through ignorance, it was necessary that, on behalf of the board, it should be distinctly shown that the board’s intentions and proposals had been entirely missated. Then he was sorry to see most unwarrantable attacks upon a man whose position in the board’s service rendered him well nigh defenceless. Statements had been made casting whatever odium could be scraped together upon the head of the board’s engineer. He held that so long as the officials of the board, whether engineer, harbormaster, or secretary, did their duty in the opinion of the board, and so long as they did not exceed their duty, they were entitled to the board’s protection, and so long as he was a member of the board he would raise his voice and protect them from scurrilous j attacks, from whatever quarter they may issue. With reference to statements of another character, he himself and a former member, Captain Sutter, were prepared to take all responsibility for the occasion of them, whether it were creditable or discreditable. Two years ago he and Captain Sutter came to an understanding that they would not rest nor allow the board to rest until it had recognised the necessity for preparing to meet the danger which was already casting its shadow over the interests of the port. Following that the board thought proper to instruct the harbormaster and engineer to take a series of soundings ; then, by what he thought was a unanimous resolution, determined to set apart £IO,OOO as a preparation for that probable necessity. Then they had the appointment of the first Commission, an appointment made in the most deliberate way after discussion at three meetings. Mr O’Gonor and Mr Goodall reported, and their report was not satisfactory to a minority on the board. In order to satisfy that minority, and with the' hope of getting something like unanimous action, a second Commission was agreed to,—Mr Napier Bell and Mr Robert Wilson. Mr Bell was the deliberate choice of the minority, and Mr Wilson was associated with him because it could not be avoided, and not the slightest objection was made to it. This second Commission reported, and the minority were still dissatisfied. —and they always would be. Turn the matter which way one would, there would always be a dissatisfied minority. And in spite of all the elaborate precautions, all the discussions, and all the excessive care that had been taken, there were two persons, he would not say they were gentlemen—persons in the district who were mean enough to cast upon the board’s engineer whatever unworthy thoughts they could manage to scrape together. The whole thing was painful to him, and in that rsspect he was disgusted with it. Those who had been on so many local bodies knew how apt party spirit was to degrade men who otherwise would be fair towards each bther. But however fierce the greed might be for borrowed money, however great the anxiety that the board should <fd back to the old business of letting Contracts and blocksmoothiug, he did not think the utmost zeal in that direction would justify the mis; •presentations which had been current in the district lately Mr Acton in conclusion said he had made these remarks entirly on his own re- ( i sponjsibility. Hd knew it was dangerous

ground, and he preferred to travel over it alone. He was aware that there were several members of the board who were inclined to take this matter up, but he did not wish them to do so, because he feared it would degenerate into a discussion which could have no good result, so he would be very glad if members would refrain from making any remarks upon what he had said, leaving to him the responsibility for that which he thought it necessary to say. At a later stage of the meeting, Mr Evans said he thought the chairman had taken a very unusual course in making such a statement, and he might have something to say about it, but he would not go into it now. Mr Stumbles also said a few words on the statement. The chairman had said some members had been making remarks on the board’s servants. He did not know who he was driving at. He thought the chairman’s remarks uncalled for, and he was not at all pleased at the way they were made. He had made no remarks himself that he was not prepared to stand to at any time. He was very much annoyed by the remarks. If he had said anything about the engineer he was quite prepared to acknowledge it. He had said nothing that he was not prepared to say to tire engineer himself. The chairman : Will you allow me to say that when 1 was speaking about the engineer, I never had you in my mind at all. Is that sufficient for you ? Mr Stumbles: You said a certain section of the board. The chairman :No ; V I said certain persons in the district. The matter then dropped.

A Band of Boy Bbioands.— An amusing instance of the contagion of example has recently been affbrded by a case in the Berlin Police Court reports. The outrage on the Turkish railway and the stories of brigands which have lately filled our newspapers seem to have acted on the imaginatiori of two boys named Oscar Scheffner and George May. They determined to become bandits, and they prevailed on several of their school-fellows to join them. The average age of the band was thirteen. They inaugurated their defiance of the law by boldly playing truant, and then they took refuge in the wilds of Grunewald, where, in true brigand fashion, they hid themselves. After a night passed in this fashion they felt the pangs of hunger, and consequently they sallied forth at an early hour and seized the milk cans and baskets of new rolls which had been left at the doors of the neighboring villas. This, however, they thought was scarcely heroic, and their next step was to garotte an old gentleman who was taking a morning stroll in the park. Somehow or other the Berlin police got wind of the affair, and the juvenile bandits were seized. They are now languishing in gruesome dungeons, where, by means of a cane administered at intervals, it is hoped that they may be made aware of the historic fact that in Northern Europe brigandage is an anachronism.