CHELSEA WHARF.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 211, 6 September 1899, Page 2

CHELSEA WHARF.

The question of the Auckland Harbour Board contributing £500 towards the cost of building a wharf for the use of ferry steamers at Chelsea naturally evok/ed considerable discussion at the meeting of the Board yesterday afternoon. The report of the Works and Tariff Committee recommended that the further consideration of the matter of providing a low level landing at Chelsea be deferred. Mr Malcolm Niccol, who was presiding in the absence of the Chairman, reported that the Works and Tariff Committee visited Chelsea wharf, and met Mr Muir, consulting engineer of the Sugar Company. They found serious difficulties in the way of passenger accommodation being provided at the cargo wharves. Trade was growing, and the Company would require to extend its wharf, and there was a natural objection to passengers making use of the wharf. The Committee saw that if a wharf was to be provided there was really only one place for it. The wharf would be used not only by employees of the Sugar Company/ but also by the public generally. The Committee thought it only fair that if the Company would construct the wharf, which it was estimated would cost from £900 to £1000, the Board should contribute half the cost, say £500. Even then the Company would have additional expenditure in making approaches to the wharf.

Mr Thornes: Will there be a perpetual right of way for the public from that wharf, when it is erected?

Mr Niccol said that would be almost impossible, as the road would lead right across where the Company might require to extend its buildings.

Mr Philson explained that a proposal had been sent to the head office in Sydney that the main wharf should be extended 40 feet westward, at a cost of £400, and that wouild also provide accommodation for the passenger traffic. That was ' agreed to, and then he learned the Committee had visited Chelsea and arranged to pay half cost of and erect a passenger wharf at another place. That was done quite unknown to himself, and the recommendation therefore came upon him as a surprise, because it was the intention of the Company to provide a landing for residents in the district. However, following the suggestion of the Committee, he once more communicated with the head office, but the reply was received that they would await fuller details by mail. Personally, he thought it right the Board should have control of the wharf, because when damage was done by ■ferry boats the Board could r<?-oover it.

The Chairman said the Board should first decide whether it was willing- to contribute the £500 towards the cost of erecting a passenger wharf at Chelsea. Mr W. Gunson said the Board seemed to bo just throwing money away if they agreed to that recommendation. They had the statement from Mr Philson that the Company was quite prepared to increase the wharf accommodation, and now the Board was asked by the Committee to step in and say, "No; we will pay £500 towards a wharf." It would be a mistake for the Board to contribute any money for a wharf at Chelsea under existing circumstances.

Mr Stichbury pointed out that ■under the agreement the Sugar Company had to provide wharf accommodation at Chelsea, and he thought the Board should not complicate matters by purtting np another wharf there. That wharf was only required by employees of the Sugar Company, and it was distinctly shown that the Company did not wish to get out of the obligation entered into to provide a wharf. He moved that no further steps be taken in the matter. Mr Gnnson secoiKled the amendment. Mr Philson said the 120 employees of the Sugar Company had as much right to have a wharf provided by the Board as the 30 to 40 people at Brick Bay. It was quite probable the Sugar Company would spend over £10,000 in extending their works at Chelsea, so the Board could afford not to meet them in a niggardly spirit in this matter. The chairman said the Board did not wish to hamper the Company in any way. The Company was a very large customer of the Board, and should therefore be met in a broad, liberal spirit. He thought the suggestion that the Board should contribute was a fair one. Mr Witheford agreed with the chairman that the Company should be met in a liberal spirit, so as to foster the idea at present entertained of extending its operations in Auckland. Mr Thornes said it was useless to build a wharf unless they had a right of way, added to which there was the question of maintenance to lie considered. The matter was ultimately adjourned for a fortnight. WHAT TO DO UNTIL THE DOCTOR AItIUVES. It is very hard to sta.nd idly by and see our dear ones suffer while awaiting the arrival of the doctor. An Albany (N.Y.) dairyman called at a drug store there for a. doctor to come and see his child, then very sick with croup. Not finding the doctor in, he left word for him to come at once on his return. He also bought a bottle of Chamberlain's Cough Remedy, which he hoped would give some relief until the doctor should arrive. In a tew hours he returned, saying the doctor need not come, as the child wa.s much better. The druggist, Mr Otto Scholz, says the family has since recommended Chamberlain's Cough Remedy to their neighbours and friends until he has a constant denvand for it from that part of the country. For sale by all dealers. Price, small 1/6, large 3/1.