HARBOR BOARD EXPENDITURE.

Evening Star, Issue 9386, 7 May 1894, Page 2

HARBOR BOARD EXPENDITURE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —If the very long and much-involved sentence with which Mr Gillies commences Lis memo, to the chairman of the Board on the above subject, and published in your issue of last night, means anything, it ipeans that be now puts the cost of the Victoria channel and the rock walling at £194,400. But this does not agree with his recent memorandum to the Board, when he placed the cost of the dredging in the Victoria channel and the steamers’ basin at that same amount. The two statements are irreconcilable, and in dealing with Lis latest I must assume that he has omitted the words “and steamers’ basin,” and that, in fact, he now intends that the sum of £194,400 shall include the three formidable items of dredging in the channel and steamers’ basin and the construction of the rock walling. Now let us see what would be the result of letting him have his own way in this. We will have— Dredging in channel and steamers’ basin and construction of rock walling ... £194,100 Deduct rock walling, as in statement, 1880 711,210

Leavin’' as the cost of dredging channel and basin up till the loan was exhausted £121,181 Now let us compare this with Mr Gillies’s own annual statements, and we will commence with that of 1881, in which he has as follows Dredging, puntage, towing, and coal ... £92,035 But from this should be deducted for dredging at Port Chalmers up till that date, and miscellaneous dredging in the Upper Harbor ... ... ... 8,932 So that dredging in Victoria channel and steamers’ basin till then had cost... £83,103 But according to Mr Gillies’s latest the whole cost of these works up to 1889 has been ... ... ... ... 151,184 So that the whole expenditure upon these work for the years 1882-3-4-5-0-7-8, and part of 1889 would only be £38,081 which differs from the actual figures by about £50,000, and is therefore absurd. As a matter of fact, the Victoria channel alone up to the end of 1887 cost very nearly as much as he allots to the channel and basin together. Thai in his last letter be puts as the second item of account against the Lower Harbor: “ Expenditure out oil revenue after loans were exhausted, £12,528/’ But his original memorandum to the Board put the whole £200,000 down to tam, so I propose to confine him to bis original proposition, and strike this out altogether on account of its being out of revenue. Then, again, we have; “ Estimated expenditure prior to end of 1882, the result of which was stated in reports of engineer and harbormaster quoted from in my memorandum, £22,472.”

The expenditure upon works referred toby him was in the year 1882, and was only about one-fourth of that sum. But the complete answer to this, and my justification in cancelling It altogether, is that it must have been included in the sums set down against the Lower Harbor when the special account was balanced by Mr Gillies and the Audit Department in 1891, and when the amount with whkih the year 1887 commenced was fixed, and therefore already included in the £165,000 of special moneys; and to put it down as Mr Gillies now proposes would be charging the same item twice over—a system of double entry which is not to bo commended. Has Mr Gillies’s position in this discussion unproved by his latest efforts ? Certainly not. In the first place, ho has endeavored to substitute “dredging in Victoria channel and rock walling ” for the items in his first memorandum qf “ dredging in Victoria channel and steamers’ basin a change of front which is quite unjustifiable. H|s next alternative, and the one upon which I have argued, is that ho means tho £194,400 to cover all these, but I have shown that this is impossible and absurd. And then I have shown that the other two items must vanish—the one because, on his own confession, it is out of revenue; and the other, besides being placed at four times the correct amount, has previously been charged against the Lower Harbor; Mr Gillies is in an unfortunate position, because he has evidently strangled the unfortunate £73,000 in cold blood, and he now finds a difficulty in disposing of the body. All now that is left oilt of loan as chargeable against tho Lower Harbor is £165,000 instead of £200.000 as Mr Gillies started with, and this brings me back to the old matter of the arrangement between Mr Gillies and the Audit Department on this matter, and induces me to repeat my request that the particulars of it should be published. Many of your readers will agree with me that there is more reason than ever for a review of that, seeing that since Mr Gillies has made such a blunder in this recent statement of accounts it is quite likely that he has been equally unfortunate in the earlier one. The only thing we can be sure of is that in entering up the charges against the Lower Harbor mistakes will not be omissions. Your readers will also agree with me that it would have been more satisfactory had he published that instead of merely expressing his willingness to give every information which may be wanted. Naturally he is averse to a criticism of his figures; but tho public good ought to be considered before his feelings, and it is not expedient that a matter of this importance should be smothered. It is to be hoped some member of the Harbor Board will demand its production.—l am, etc., G. M. Bauk. Dunedin, May 4.