HUTT BOROUGH AFFAIRS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 566, 22 July 1909, Page 6

HUTT BOROUGH AFFAIRS.

"DOCTORS DIFFER.'! . MR. MESTAYER SUPPORTS'MR. LAINGMEASON. • _A speciaj mooting of the Hutt Borough Council was held last night to further consider the expenditure on tho' £52,000 loaii. Iho Mayor (Air. E. P. Bunny) presided. Tho councillors present were: Councillors, Baldwin, Macaskill, Barlow, Kempthorne, Pearco Anson, and Clorc, Mr. Mcstayor (consulting engineer recently called in) stated, that tho object ot Ins report appeared to bo primarily to sofctlo disputed amounts as put forward by the,borough engineer and Mr. Laing-Meason respectively. Ho found both gentlemen agreod as the sewers. He himself agreed very c osely with the longths given "by tho borough onginoer in his report of July 1 In taking out the quantities of- tho excavation, he adopted a different plan from that adopted by tho borough ongineor. Ho then priced each section at what ho considered the lowest rate it could reasonably bo done. Mr. Mestaycr added: "Ono important point on which I diffor from tbo borough ongineor is in the widths bo has allowed for tho trenches, and this will account for the greater parf of the excess of thooxcavation in my quantities. The total estimated.cost of excavating for tho eastern section is £6793 18s. 6d., while tho western section would involve £2482 15s. Somo slight Reduction might possibly bo effected by a judicious selection of the work, carrying out only the shallowest portions during tho winter, and leading all the deeper portions to be done in tho summer'; on tho other hand, this advantage is discounted Bomqwhat by tho loss of timo : involved in shifting the- gangs from ono place to auotlier instead:of going straight forward, and;'personally, I would not like'to take tho responsibility of advising your council 'thai tho Jq cou,d be c 3l ™*! out for less than

A very long and desultory discussion followed. ... ' "'■'■■'.■■' . ■ ■

Mr. Rix-Trott: I hare just finished the sewerage in Waterloo Road—tho same average as: threo-ouartere of the borough— at £1 14s. 3d. per chain less than > this estimate. . ■■ \ ■ ■ ■ ■■■.''

Councillor Baldwin: It is an old saying that, doctors differ. It is the same way with these estimates. Ihavo it from a working contractor that he would do -the remaining ,work at Jlr. Rix-Trott's estimates with 10 per cent, added. •, .-. •• . , . - Mr. Rix-Trott remarked that tWo was a aifference_ of a foot in the width' of tho trenches in the two estimates. : ■. '■ The Mayor:. Ton said the excavations were going to; cost £5200; Mr.. Meason said, they were going to cost £9000, and that your estimate was absurd^ , low. Did you not tell Mr. M«stayer that you did certain work at 7d. per foot ? Mr. Ruc-Trott: Yes. • The Mayor:. Mr; Mcstayet "says'he has never heard of such a thing. Councillor Macaskill: It seems to mo that our engineer's figures are taken for nothing. I,am hero to figtrt the'battle of justice. He a salary of £500 with free quarters in Africa.'Ho was chosen out of 34 applicants. _ The Mayor: We are all tired of investigating this matter,'but if you drive me iuto'it, I will bring evidence to satisfy everybody. lAfter further" discission, tho Mayor quoted a letter from' Mr. M'Carthy, when asking for a rise hv wages, and stating that ho had done tho levelling, traversing, etc., in the borough. . > -..'■■ . •. This, was questioned by Mr.. Rix-Trott. and', the ■" remark was- , made . that Mr. Rix-Trott had recommended unauthorised, expenditure. . .' ~' : . : Mr. Baldwin: As •a ■ member of the two councils, I. say "No." '. ,<' . Councillor Kempthorno: I think- tSiat. the engineer and the council were both wrong in this... . '.■•.•; • •'■■-. ■

The .Mayor: So do I. Councillor Anson: If it is unauthorised, that is not for the engineer to 6ay. ...,The Mayor:- It. is. . . .;'.-:..... ■. •'. ■ Mr. Rix-Trott: I was not the treasurer; The ballot-paper, dealing with tho £52,000 loan was next' discussed. Councillor Alison said that as,the item, £29,400-for--drainage, sewerage, and sanitation, was , drawn .up without specifying the amount for -each, surely the engineer, could not be blamed, if he treated it as one item; : ■ '■■'■''•- The Mayor-disputed this. . , . Councillor Macaskill maintained that if the, engineer.' had said that there was no money for a certain work he would have been told to g°- ■ .'■ . ''. .. •'..•.■'. -'■ •'.-.. The Mayor: If the- engineer said there was no money,' and,,! to do tho work, there is not a councillor. here who ■ would support me. , . ' ..'' ••■•■■ Councillor Anson mqved: "That although tho council regrets that there has been an improper excess of it considers'that, the borough engineer is not to blame." "... the words "to blame" in the motion. " Councillor Pearoe moved as an amendment that the word "chiefly" be inserted. beforo the words "to blame" in the motion; . Hβ did not wish to completely exonerate Mr. Rix-Trott. ..'■'■■■ '.;■..■■ '~:\ ; .. ,■■.■•. >. The Mayor seconded the amendment. . ;•» ■ Tho word "chiefly" was altered to "entirely." . •-.•;. . ■ .. •■ ,•■ . ■ .' -..-, . Councillor Pearce's amehdnient was carried, Councillors Kempthorne, Pearco, Clere, and the Mayor voting for it; and .Councillors Baldwin, Macaskill, Barlow, and Anson against. The amendment was carried by'the Mayor's casting vote. . \ ' •■'. , ' The Mayor: I presume there is.no objection 7 to' the publication of Air. Mestayer's' report? ■' •■ . ..•■,'. , :' . ,- Mr, Ris-Trott: Then why not publish these letters from two'^ex-Mayors? ■ You.seem to have a set against 'me. _ .■■'■' Tie Mayor: I have my own opinion of you, and I am going ; to, do my duty; I have no dead set against you. I feel, that my dtyty as Mayor is a responsible one, and I will not bo. deterred by one'iota iw doing what; I consider my duty. l I don't mind the. letters'being,, published. ■■.-':'..' The lettgrs as.follows:— "" -.' SiTj— -Ufa ,-i.iincil authorised-all the works enumerated,, jpu, at a total.cost .of £7385.6e. Bd., all;-.... .whidh works were reoomanended by you and endorsed by my council as being absolutely necessary. The council had authority of the •ratepayers for all tihese works, vide voting jpaper of, November 3, 1905.— (Signed T. W. M'DONALD).

Sir,—The amounts shown in your report as , having i>een expended out of loan, during the years 1907-08 and 1908-09 are correct according, to the balance-sheets, the former of which, has already received , the approval of tho Audit Departrcent, while the latter- is: now awaiting audit. These items were ,aH approved by the council as works necessary in the interests of the ratepayers, and electors generally, arid the,engineer was duly authorised from time to time • to< execute them. The works on the Main Road paid , for in 1907-8 were commenced under Major M'Doh-, aid's council, and my council carried them to completion. What you say with regard to iihe statement of works'having been placed befoTe the committee as perfectly correct, and the works were aufhonsed in the loan proposals. ■■•■•• • ; - ( (Signed) W. H; EUSSELL. It was decided, on the motion of Councillor Baldwin, that Major M'Donald and Mr. W. H. Russell, in the absence of Mr. T. A. Poierkin, be invited to give evidence. The, next meeting was fixed for Monday week at 7.30.; . : ' . ' ..-"'.