Contract v. Day Labour.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 279, 6 November 1902, Page 3

Contract v. Day Labour.

DISCUSSION IN THE COUNCIL

At Tuesday's meeting of the Waimate County Council the question of purchasing a horse for carting to the bridges being done by day labour was brought up. The Chairman reported that a B'jitable horse had not, been brought forward for inspection by the committee appointed. The Engineer said tint he had made arrangements with a local settler who went backwards an J forwards regularly, to do the carting for the Hook bridge. It was not necessary, therefore, to take any further action in regard to purchasing a horse. In moving a resolution that in future no work over £25 be done by day labour, Mr Ross said several local men had applied for work on the present bridge repairs and could not got it. It appeared that the most of the men were North Islanders. This he did not consider in any way fair. Mr Walker, in seconding the motion, stud he had calculated the woik to be done, and it had involved about JE2OOO in labour and materials. A great deal of dissatisfaction hud been expressed that this work should be done by day labour and also by men from the North . Island, local men being ignored. Formerly a great number of contracts had been done, and always satisfactorily, by contract, and there was no reason why that system should be departed from. The present, system was unsatisfactory. J Mr Bremner said he was only desirous of doing os the Council wished. He himself was of opinion J that the day labour system was cheaper and better. What he desired was to got the Council the b 1 at &id cheapest work for the money. Mr Walker said it was an absurd thing to bring a man from the North Island at 7 per day and pay his expenses here. It was ridiculous to think that a man could not be got here at 78 a day. Mr Bremner said the man referred to was an Oainaru man who had volunteered to come down here. Out of seven men employed on the Otaio bridge five were local men and two from Wellington. Mr Hurdie said there were not many competent bridge builders in the district, although there had been at one time. He was in favour of calling tenders. Mr Douglas said that they were all in favour of contract work where it was straightforward, but he understood this was not. Mr Walker was of opinion that it was straightforward. The whole of the bridge had to be renewed except the piles. Mr Studholme was in favour of contract work where possible, but there were occasions on which it would not be advisable to call tenders, or contractors might not be procurable, and therefore it would not do to absolutely tie their hands. Mr Walker said the resolution was only in support of a bye-law now existing, that all work over £lO must be tendered for. The Chairman said that the Council had given Mr Bremner permission to do the present work by day labour. Mr Walker said that the Council had no power under the Act to do so. Mr Bremner, with permission of the Council, read a letter received by him from the Distiict Surveyor, Christchuich, before the present work was undertaken, giving it as his opinion that a good gang of men would do bridge work cheaper and better than by contract. Mr Ross said a man experienced m bridge building told him that he could tell to a stick what timber waa required for any bridge. Mr Walker said this was quite right The motion was put and lost.