DRAINAGE BOARD NOMINATIONS

Evening Star, Issue 12399, 12 January 1905, Page 4

DRAINAGE BOARD NOMINATIONS

SIX CANDIDATES FOB THREE VACANCIES. Nominations' to fill the vacancies oq the Drainage Board caused by certain members retiring by* effluxion of time were announced by the returning officer (Mr J. 6. Sconllar) at noon to-day. The retiring members of the old Board are the Hon. H. Gouriey, Messrs B. Glendining and R. M. dark, of whom Messrs Gouriey Mid Clark seek reelection. Following is a list of present candidates with their nominators-

T. B. Christie, nominated by G. Ritchie and W. R. Hayward. Job. Arkle, nominated by W. A. Brittell arid J. Hjghley. R. M. dark, nominated by J. B. Shacklock and D. Larnach.

Thos. S. Culling, nominated by Chas. Speight, H, V. Fulton, P. Miller, and J. Loudon.

H. Gouriey, nominated by R. Qlendining and J. A Johnstone. '

Jas. Small, nominated by' J. C. Wilson and Jas. M'Gill.

The Returning Officer stated that as there were more candidates than the number of members to bo elected, a poll would be taken, in accordance with statute, on Wednesday next, January 18. ’ Mr Arkle addressed the twenty or so persons present. He said that he had been, asked by a large number of people to stand for election, and went on to refer to his experience in municipal matters. if returned, he said, he would do as he always had done—viz., make the interests of the ratepayers his fust consideration. He would see that their money was spent properly, and that it produced the most that could be got for it. He would not hold the post as a sinecure, but would strive to be able at the end of his term to look the people in the face and say that be had doue his duty.—(Applause.) Mr Clark said that during his period of office on the Board he did not profess to have .brought to it any engineering knowledge, but he had given the work' elore attention from week to week. He did claim, though, to know something about finance, and such knowledge as he had ho would still, if elected again, place at the disposal of the City. There had been no relationship between him and the engineer except of a professional character, and he wanted to say that he had every confidence in the ability of Mr Anderson, who was a man of exceptional energy and absolutely incorruptible. As to the question of contracts, the Board had no objection to the works now from? on. But the work of retttn’ation in the side streets, etc., must be done day by day by the Board themselves. He would make this a sine qua non, though other works might he done by contract. He then referred to the Board’s accounts, which he thought were kept in a simple manner. Though on© might not be able to find out all one wanted to know from them, there were heads for everything, everything was kept in its place, and a return could be got from the bookkeeper without delay. He thought the svstem compared favorably with the best of those adopted by any of our large firms.—(Applaure.) Mr Gonrley said that he had always done his best, and would continue to do so. The Board were now, committed to a scheme of drainage, and there was no backing out of it. And therefore he thought it their duty to carry out that scheme in fts entirety,- and as cheaply as possible. It was not necessary for him to go into the question of the engineer’s ability; the report published in last night’s paper allowed that ability clearly. After making reference to the matter of the Frederick street sewer, the speaker went on to say that if returned he, would do his best to see that everything was done in a proper way. His opinion that when over the engineer thought it advisable to have anything done by day labor the Board should support him. Mr Small read the platform in regard to candidates of the Ratepayers’ and Householders’ Association hv way of recommendation as follows:—That the policy of the Drainage Board has not been in the best interests of the community. That their policy, aa far as it is possible t<f know it. is to be condemned for its lack of organised supervision and its lavish expenditure. That under their the amount of money—viz., ,£2oo.ooo—which the Board are emnowered to borrow cannot possibly give Dnnedin and suburbs a complete drainage scheme. That no genuine attempt has been made to test the correctness of th<? estimates submitted to the Board. That the ratepayers are entitled to know on the best procurable evidence how much the. completed scheme will cost. That as the Board’s policy is to carry out their work by day labor, the public should be made aware each fortnight of (1) the amount of work done, (2) its cost, and (3) the engineer’s estimate of the cost. That Parliament shall not lie approached for additional rating powers or to authorise an additional loan unless the consent of the ratepayers is first obtained. That immediately upon the new Board meeting a committee bo appointed to ascertain the total cost, as closely as it is possible to do so, of the completed scheme, and that the result of and the reasons for their Conclusions be made public at the earliest moment. That p’ans of the complete scheme be prepared and mad© public. The above cover the main points in our policy. Wo believe they are wise. Wo regret that the late Board have so far neglected their duty as to have made them necessary, and we confidently anticipate that von will endorse them by returning tfco candidates we have recommended to you by a majority sufficiently large to indicate your approval of our policy and vour dirapurobation of that at present existing.—(Applause.) Finally, Mr. Small proposed the customary vote of thanks to tlio returning officer, which was carried.