THE CALLIOPE DOCK NEGOTIATIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 56, 8 March 1899, Page 2

THE CALLIOPE DOCK NEGOTIATIONS.

||. MR BRIGHAM IN LONDON

'A PROPOSAL TO RECALL HIM DEFEATED.

The matter of the negotiations with the Admiralty in connection with the

equipment of Calliope Dock came before members of the Harbour Board yesterday. In reply to Mr Brigham's last communication from London on the subject, the Finance and Legal Committee of the Board recommended: That the Board be requested to ask the Treasury if they will guarantee the amount required by the Board for the equipment of Calliope Dock, as the Board cannot obtain the money under 4 per cent., and, failing ? that, [Mr Brigharn be asked to return.' The following cablegram from Mr Brigharn was also read: '6th March. —Impossible hurry. I await reply from Treasury.' ' The chairman said he had looked into this matter, and he found that -the Board could not legally ask the Treasury to guarantee the loan. It •would require an Act of Parliament for any department of the Home Government to guarantee any colonial stock or loan. He thought the motion should be altered, and that they should delay a week before they sent any cable. . Mr Witheford said he thought this paragraph should be expunged from the minutes altogether. They should not have had such a paragraph before the Board. In the first place, he was offered the money at 34 per cent, before he left London. The .statement should not go forth therefore that the Board could not get money at less than 4 per cent. Morevoer, the maximum interest on which the Admiralty based their subsidy was 3i per cent. The Admiralty would not acknowledge 4 per cent, when he was in England. ' Mr Niccol asked if he was right m assuming that a cable has already jbeen sent asking for 3J per cent.? The chairman replied 'Yes.' Mr Niccol thought it a pity that that should be done without the taiowledge of the Board. He did not think that the Board would object, but matters of that kind ought to fcome before the Board. He quite expected that the chairman would have the Board that he had sent p, telegram to that effect. Mr Napier said he did inform the Committee, and as a matter of fact the Board had been committed to nothing. Mr Niccol had misconstrued the telegram. Mr Brigharn cabled that the Treasury had refused to pay jnore than 2\ per cent., and that practically the matter had come to a deadlock. Mr Brigham's stay in London syas costing the Board from £23 to ji 25 a week, including the cost of a substitute and salary, and he (Mr Napier) thought that a fortnight's expense might .be saved. He knew, moreover, that if the Admiralty offered 3 1 per cent, the Board" would accept, because the Board itself made certain proposals to the Admiralty before Mr Witheford succeeded in getting any offer at all. It was therefore absurd to suggest that the Board •would, not accept 3J per cent. Moreover, he was aware that the Board could get the money at 3J per cent., and he believed it could be got locally. His cable was merely an inquiry. Mr Gunson insisted that the cable be Jread. Mr Laird said that on February 23 the following cable was sent: —'Any probability of the Admiralty paying 33 per cent? If so, then what time?' Then on March 3 a cable was sent, asking for a reply to the above by table. Mr .Witheford urged the desirability *>f waiting the Secretary's reply to the last message, as it would be most embarrassing to send a cable respecting 4 per cent., which was distinctly refused, while the authorities were considering the counter suggestion. He moved that the clause be struck out. It was manifestly unfair to Mr Brigharn. Mr Brigharn had informed the Board that he could not get 4 per cent.; yet it was proposed to cable to him that tmless he could get 4 per cent, the Board would kick him out of London. PersonaUy, he never approved of Mr Brigharn going to London, believing it to be a decided waste of the Board's money; still, he did not approve of passing a resolution which was not at ill appropriate to the occasion. Mr Thornes seconded. Mr Pbilson said it was impossible lor the Board to borrow money at 2\ per cent. Unless the Government could get the money for the Board at 2£ per cent., the Board's only way j cut of the difficulty was to give up j the idea, and having given up the i idea there was no use in keeping Mr Brigharn any longer in London. As to their being any discourtesy to Mr Brigharn, nothing of the kind was intended. Mr Brigham's mission would Jjaye ended from tha fact that he had been unable to come to terms with the Admiralty. Mr Niccol said what really led the fcommittee to make this recommendation was the feeling in the minds of some of the members that there was a danger of the Board not succeeding, simply because of the urgency with which they were pushing the matter forward. There was a feeling that the Board had been atattempting too much to thrust the matter down the throat of the British Government, and some members thought that Mr Brigharn should not be kept for an indefinite period in .London, but that he should return, and-that the matter should be settled by correspondence. There was no idea of snubbing Mr Brigharn. Mr Witheford's motion to strike' out the paragraph from the report was jthen put and carried unanimously.