THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. MR. G. FISHER'S MEETING.

Evening Post, Volume XV, Issue 212, 10 September 1877, Page 2

THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. MR. G. FISHER'S MEETING.

Mr. George Fisher, one of the candidates for the representation of the Thorndon Ward in the City Council, addressed a large meeting of the ratepayers at the Princess Hotel on Saturday evening — Mr. George Anderson in the chair. Mr. Fishbr said he did not come forward out of ambition, or merely to gratify any small personal feelings, but because there was an important question now at issue — whether the City Council or the ratepayers' interests were to be paramount — and he came forward to support certain public principles. For one thing, it wa3 palpable that all tenderers were not treated on the same footing. Again, the proceedings in reference to the Town Hall plans had excited much unfavorable comment. He did not object to the proposal to have a Town Hall; it was an ancient custom to have one in every town, and it had many advantages. It was decided to build one, and then came some proceedings which reflected great discredit on the Council. Competitive designs were called for, and the call was responded to from all parts ot the colony. The designs were exhibited publicly, and 'he asked all who had seen them what' they thought of the Council's decision. The essence of such competition was its presumed fairness, and what he might call its sacred secrecy. Were these conditions observed ? Most emphatically no ! It was rumored that the motto of at least one competitor was divulged. That might or might not be the case, but this he did know, that the Council, composed of non-professional men, went through the whole eleven sets of elaborate and complicated designs, which required careful examination and comparison, in two hours. Anyone could judge what consideration they could receive in that short time. Such socalled competition was simply a contemptible farce. It was laid down as an essential point that the cost was not to exceed £10,000. Among the rejected designs were some admirable ones, which must have cost at least £100 in preparation, that of " Fair Play " (from Auckland) for instance, with which "Teviot's" plan was not in any way to be compared. Yet all this skill and expenditure were thrown away in favor of "Teviot's" very indifferent design— a mere barn— because it was alleged that the cost of the others would exceed the prescribed £10,000. But, having accepted "Teviot's" plan, what did the Council do with it ? They told the author to put it into the waste paper basket, because it lacked all the elements of what the Council required, and they would be ashamed to see it built. Now the author estimated the cost of the altered plan at £17,000. Then what became of the limit as to cost which was the excuse for rejecting the designs sent in by skilled and eminent men? About one-fourth of the building was to be erected at once, and the architect estimated the cost of that part at between £3000 and £4000, but, when the tenders were opened, the lowest was £3699, so that, allowing for a similar discrepancy for the rest of the building, instead of £10,000, it would probably cost £24,000. Then there was the metal contract. The first advertisement for tenders was withdrawn because one particular man was not ready with his tender. Next, before opening the tenders, the Mayor stated that he had told the tenderers to add the cost of a depot to their tenders, and in the case of those to whom he had not spoken the cost of a depot would have to be added. Goodman's tender was 7s lid, and he was to find a depot himself. The tender was accepted, but Goodman couldn't find a depot, all sorts of obstacles being thrown in his way, and he threw up his contract. Fresh tenders were called. Johnson's tender was 7s Bd, Saunders' 7s 9d, and Welsh's 8s ll^d. The Surveyor said that Welsh's stone (of which a big boulder was sampled) was worth twice as much a3 the others, but the Mayor and Councillor Greenfield maintained that they must stick to the specifications. Councillors Allen and Cleland did their best to have either Welsh's or Johnson's tender accepted, but the Mayor and Councillor Greenfield insisted that the specifications required either Kaiwarra or Ngahauranga stone. The specifications said nothing of the sort. Mr. Cleland — The specification said either Ngahauranga or equal to sample. Mr. Fisher continued : — Councillor Allen proposed to accept Johnson's tender, leaving the Surveyor to see that the stone was equal to the sample, but Councillor George urged that Saunders' tender should be accepted and ho be allowed to get the stone where he liked, and he got it from Kaiwarra. Mr. Sattxders — And it was worth 4s more than I tendered for. Mr. Fisher had nothing to say agaiast Mr. Saunders who of course made what he could out of his contracts, and it was the Surveyor's fault if he did not carry them out. The voting was 3 to 4, the Mayor declining to vote although called on by Councillor Cleland to do so, and at next meeting, when Councillor Moss asked whether the Mayor was not obliged to vote, the Mayor replied only if called on, and lie had not been called on. This was a specimen of Mr. Hutchison's veracity. Next there was the wharf contract. The reports on this subject were given with some degree of correctness in- tho New Zealand Times — a matter of great rarit3'. In the interval between opening and accepting the tenders the Mayor rushed off to the bank with one of tho deposit cheques to see if it were all right. Why did he single out that one ? Mr. M'Kirdy — Because it was not marked and the others were. Mr. Cleland — No, Mr. Saunders' cheque also was not marked. Mr. Fisher— Then the Council objected to accept the two lowest separate tenderers lest they should clash, on which the two tenderers offered to carry out the work jointly and harmoniously, so removing that difficulty. But the Council, after opening the tenders, had passed a resolution that no separate tenders should be accepted, uuless together they were £1000 below Mr. M'Kirdy's. Why was this? Because Mr. M'Kirdy had an influence in that Council, which he ought not to have. The tenden of Coffey and Goodfellow ought to have been accepted, and £500 saved. But one councilor "ratted" (to quote Councillor Allen)— Mr. Cleland— Two — Mr. Fisher— And Mr. M'Kirdy got the contract. As to the tenders for the waterworks contract, there were some curious rumors circulated. The New Zealand Times threatened to make some tremendous disclosures about this contract, but, alas ! it roared like a lion in the beginning and mewel like a cat in the end. There was one paper in Wellington for which he entertained some degree of respect, for the other two he had none at all. Mr. Fisher proceeded to denounce the proposed Glenben ie Terrace and Hobson-street jobs, the Thompson-street blunder, the excessive overdraft (£IO,OOO, double the amount allowed by law), and the increase in wages from £500 to £1350. He highly commended the waterworks system, and the way Mr. Marchant had carried it out. He considered the proposed drainage scheme much too elaborate aud costly for a town of Wellington's present size, and thought a much simpler and cheaper plan might have been devised. But as this scheme had been adopted, and a drainage engineer appointed, he ought to have full management, instead of another engineer being instructed to lay down pipe drains which would not work in with the main scheme. Here, again, came in the omniscient wisdom of the great Hutchison, who insisted that they would not conflict with Mr. Climie's scheme, although Mr. Climie proved that they would. Already about £.3000 of the £50,000 drainage loan had been spent, and what was. there to show for it ? It was to be regretted that City Councillors did not travel more, and see what was done in other places. As it was, the loan was being simply frittered away. Then the present regiment of officials was far beyond the requirements of the city. In spite of the n u mber of ofleials to look after matters, there were great complaints of ratepayers who had paid their rates in time, being omitted from the roll. He was in favor of extending the water mains as much as possible, reducing the water rate to a minimum, and supplying schools free. He advocated electing City Councillors annually and holding Council meetings in the evening. The men elected should be active and vigilant, not either listless and feeble, or under the influence of contractors, some of whom were endeavoring to influence this election, ijere he wished to make a personal explanation. It was one of the highest virtues in the attributes of an honorable man. to make ppompt reparation for an injury done, and he frankly admitted that had be had more time for consideration, he should have modified some expressions in the address he had published, but he was irritated by an allusion on the part of one candidate to " vile slanders." He would now tell Mr. Gillon and Mr. Maginnity that ii he could win his election only by sacrificing their friendship, he would not care to be returned. Mr. Maginnity in particular was one of his oldest friends in New Zealand, and if his address had hurt their feelings or injured their chances he deeply regretted it. Let all the candidates stand on their own merits. His only reason for coming forward was his dis-

.satisfactionwith the way iv which the Council's business was carried on. (Applause). Messrs. Maginnity and Gillon accepted Mr. Fisher's explanation, the latter, however, expressing a desire for a more categorical retractation. Mr. Fisher could only state what he heard accidentally, which was an offer on the part of one gentleman, in the Pier Hotel on Saturday afternoon, to pay the expenses of another if he would stand. Mr. J. R. Browit said that he and Messrs. Cattell and Bolton had offered to pay Messrs. Maginnity and Gillon's expenses. Mr. Fisher was aware of it, but that was on the following Monday. What he refered to occurred on the Saturday before. Mr. Gillox understood that Mr. Fisher would have been willing that his name should be placed on the same ''ticket." Mr. Fisher said he had been asked on three distinct occasions to allow his name to be placed on that ticket, and he had positively declined. He intended to pay his own expenses himself. In reply to a question, Mr. Fisher said he was iv favor of the Corporation paying the expense of all connections between house drains and main sewers. The meeting then closed with a vote of thanks to the candidate for his address and to the chairman.