THE BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 58, 9 March 1935, Page 12

THE BRIDGE.

WHAT PROSPECTS?

COMPANY'S EFFORTS.

FAILURE TO RAISE MONEY

HOPES DISAPPOINTED

(No. I.) The recent resolution of the Auckland City Council, recommending the forfeiture by the Auckland Harbour Bridge Company, Ltd., of its charter, has set many people wondering about the prospects of the harbour bridge project, which lias remained a project for so many years. The time appears opportune for a review of the efforts which have been made to build the bridge, and particularly of the activities of the Harbour Bridge Company and its predecessors.

The first setback received by tliose advocating the bridge scheme was when, in August, 1928, officers, of the Auckland Harbour Hoard, in a report upon the scheme, expressed tho opinion that they did not think the time opportune to build the bridge. At that time the Harbour Bridge Association estimated that the bridge would cost £700,000 (since then the original scheme line been extended, and tho estimated cost increased considerably), and the Harbour Board officers' report stated that it would cost annually £100,000 to pay interest, provide for sinking fund and maintenance. This was four times the amount the Devonport Ferry Company was then deriving from freights. The Royal Commission.

In 1929 the Government decided to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the proposed bridge. Mr. E. 11. Grevillc, then, president of the Harbour Bridge Association, suggested the personnel of the commission, and immediately there was a protect from the Harbour Board and others. In June of the same year another note was struck when the late Mr. D. E. Harkness, then lecturer in civil engineering at the Auckland University, gave a lecture on the practicability of connecting the two sides of the harbour by means of a tunnel. A .eontroVersy between advocates of rival schemes then ensued through the columns of the newspapers.

In October, 1929, the personnel of the Royal Commission was appointed. The members wore Mr. l< , . W. Furkert, engi-neer-in-ehief of the Public Works Department; Mr. Jas. Marehbanka, general manager and chief engineer to the- Wellington Harbour Board; and Captain Coll McDonald, representing the Otago Harbour Board. The personnel did not meet with the approval of the Harbour Bridge Association, and the complaint was made that "the. cards had been stacked against the bridge." However, despite a protest to the Minister of Public Works and in the House, the appointments stood.

The commission opened its sittings at Auckland on November 14, 1929, but none of the interested parties were ready with their evidence. The Harbour Bridge Association representatives submitted that the borings which the Government had arranged to take of the harbour should be available before- evidence was heard, but the commission over-mled this contention, holding that the first question was whether the bridge was necessary, and pointed out that the population of Auckland was then just over 200,000. At this juncture there appeared on the scene the Waiteinata Bridge Inquiry Protection Association, but it seems to have made it* debut and taken its final curtain almost at once. What the Commission Found. The commission concluded its inquiry on December 10, 1929, and on May 15 of the following year reported that the bridge project was premature, and that the time for the erection of the bridge would not arrive in less than 20 years. The commission estimated that the cost of the bridge as proposed in the plans considered would be £1,9.10,000. 4 Fixed charges, based on interest at 5§ per cent, sinking fund J per cent, and depreciation, maintenance and operation 1A per cent, on round figures of £2.000,000 would amount to £l; 30,000 annually. The commission also expressed the opinion that the bridge should not be built by the Government or local authorities, but added that no obstacle should be placed in the way of a private company building the bridge, and if there could be any such arrangement the company or private individual should have all the rights to tolls for a period of 2o years.

1500 Applicants for Work. Supporters of the scheme then set to work to form a company, and this was done with a capital of 3-5000. Most of the money was subscribed in small amounts, and mostly by North Shore residents. On March VI, 1031, the director* stated that the bridge could be started within four months of the granting of the charter. Direct work on the bridge would be given 000 men :ind indirect work to several hundreds more. Kxcept for certain skilled men all the labour was to be supplied from the Dominion. On September <J, 1031, the Auckland Harbour Bridge Empowering Bill wa.s passed, and Mr. C. If. M. VVilh, then chairman of directors of the-, Harbour Bridge Company, announced he was confident a start would be made on the building of the bridge the following year. On October 23, 1931, Mr; Wills stated that hundreds of men had already applied for jobs and a list was being kept. On December IS, 1031, he announced that good progress was being made and a definite announcement would be made within a few weeks. No less than 1.300 men had applied for jobs, so lie had closed the list.

Dispute in Directorate. In the following month, January 8, 1032, a dispute arose among the directors when the board of directors issued a circular with the object of removing two of their number from - office. The main reason given in the circular was that a request had been made by Mr. JSnnis, of Messrs. Dorman, Long and Co., Ltd, that the directorate should be reduced as miieh as possible. Mr. Kniiis had stated to the directorate that his firm was negotiating for the necessary finance, but financiers were definitely opposed to largo directorates and lie suggested the directorate should comprise not more than eight —three local body representatives, four shareholders', an.! one representative of his firm. lie had mentioned that his (inn would probably have to find the major portion of the share capital of £250.000. (Prior to this the Harbour Bridge Company had been negotiating with Messrs. Dorman.

Long anil Co., builders of the- Sydney Harbour Bridge.) The two directors refused to resign voluntarily and there was more dissension.

On March 3, 1932, Sir Walter Stringer was appointed chairman of directors, Mr. 0. H. M. Wills' . having tendered his resignation owing to a new agreement having been entered into between the company and the legal firm of which Mr. Wills was senior partner. 3n March, 1932, the Hon. Roland Kitsou, a, director of the Bank of England and deputy-chairman t of directors of Dorman, Long and Co., arrived in Auckland, lie intimated to the directors that unless £250,000 were raised in New Zealand it was unlikely English investors would put big money into the proposal, lie- also said that, naturally, English investors would wish to know the standing of the directors of the company.

Shareholders' Annual Meeting. On September ti, 1032, the announcement was made that negotiations for financing the bridge through Dorman, Long and Co., and other English construction companies, had failed. A circular to that effect was sent to shareholders. The shareholders also received notice concerning the first annual meeting, stating that the meeting would inquire into statements made that a certain sum of money covered certain work for a period of ten years; the reason why the annual general meeting of shareholders had been delayed; and why directors who resigned by request had not been reinstated, seeing that the reason for their resignation had not proved necessary.

The first annual meeting was held in private on September 17, 1932, and during the meeting Sir Walter Stringer and two directors "representing local bodies left the room, and the meeting "gradually dissolved." It was stated subsequently that there had been considerable discussion on the balance-sheet, which was adopted. A motion to appoint live shareholders a committee to put prominent business men on the directorate brought a sharp difference of opinion, and the motion was declared carried. A poll was demanded, whereupon the chairman left the chair, saying: "If you want to go on with this meeting, you must get another chairman; I'm going-" On October 0, 1932, Mr. J. Guiniven, Mayor of Takapuna, at a meeting of representatives of local bodies, said that the general opinion was that the bridge would never be built by the Harbour Bridge Company. He also expressed the opinion that if the money was not available within a month, the company should go into liquidation.

On October 21, 1032, the- annual meeting was resumed, and tho number of directors, exclusive of the three local body representatives, increased from five to nine. _««. On February 21, 1033, shareholders held a meeting and passed a resolution calling upon the company to go into voluntary liquidation. ";£i,500,000 Available." On June 10, 1033, the directors issued a statement that they had received advice from England that £1,500,000 wae ready and available to build the bridge, provided certain financial details were settled locally. On December 3, 1934, accompanying the report and balance-sheet read at the annual meeting, was a slip of paper which stated that "a report had been received from London stating that finance was now definitely available, and the information they were supplying must satisfy the most hesitant of financiers." On February 22 of the present year it was revealed that at eome previous date there had been negotiations with Krupps, the German steel and armament Arm. Krupps , agent in London said his firm had been approached on tho matter eleven months previously, and had "refused after examining the proposal." On Wednesday last a deputation coniprieing the secretary of the company, Mr. C. G. Ashdowne, Mr. Julius Hogben, and Messrs. J. Guiniven. R. Martin and G. Mills, Mayors of Takapuna, Northcote and Birkenhead respectively, went to Wellington with the request that the Main Highways Hoard and Unemployment Board give free grants of £200,000 each. The Minister of Employment, Sir Alexander Young, said the Unemployment Board was willing to "grant a subsidy on the wages paid to men in Xcw Zealand on the fabrication of eteel, up to £100,000," but unemployment funds would not be used to subsidise the building of a bridge. (To be continued.)