Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


Ip ’ l •' ; ' * flTha.monthly meeting of tho Otago HarIfffljb.fßoard as attended last night by I Mobstb J. M. Dickson {in. the choir), W. G. R, Ritchie, H. IL. Tapley, RuaeeU, W. Belcher, .1. H. Walker, SfcjScollay, J. H. F. Hamel, J. Loudon, tnd E. C. Hazlett. Tho bank balance certificate disclosed a let credit of £5,187 2s Id. —'Tho Secretary announced that the following telegram, hud been forwarded to die Hon. J. A. Millar :—“ On the evo of your retirement from politics, on behalf of She Otago Harbor Board, 1 desire to express our very sincere regret that the City aod the Otago Harbor Board are to lose febe-benefit of your ability and ijpatinted energy and resourcefulness. Stour practical application to the interests if my board have laid us under a special '’debt ;of gratitude to yourself. We trust ,'rthat your retirement into private life will you to enjoy u well-earned rest, “though, to be quite candid, we ho]>e the will soon have tho benefit of .'.Vcur matured experience in the Legislative vCounciL Heartily and specially wishing . you good health and happiness in the future —(Signed) H. E. Mollxr.” —The potter was approved. S’. r —Fire Protection.— > <■, The Standing Committee recommended Iwith respect to the letter from the Town dplerk advising that the City Council confiidered that better protection would be provided by larger water mains than by "motor fire pump, and were prepared to increase (at an estimated cost of £1,300) tho size of mains in Wharf and Rattray • streets to Gin mains, provided the board paid half cost, that’consideration be dei lerred until a plan and information is re- ■ ceived ’from the City Council showing what work is included in the estimate, and until some has been considered by the subcommittee set up in connection with the matter. Tho recommendation was agreed to. ■■ —Revenue and Expenditure. — Tho Standing Committee submitted the „ following comparative statement of re- " venue and expenditure : Revenue. —For October. 1914, £8,898; .October, 1915, £8,442: January-October, • 1914, £83,145; January-October, 1913, £79,528. Expenditure ; For October, 1914, 1 £7,715; October, 1915, £10.143; JanuaryiJOotcber, 1914, £83,346; January-October, 0913, £87,145. Expenditure out of loan, Sf October, 1914, £2,610; October, 1915. JJ35.950; January-October; 1914, £36,170; q January-October, 1915, £35,354. The statement relating to the dock was »a follows : . Revenue for October, 1914, £544; Octo■_ber, 1913, £743; January-October, 1914, ££7,736: January-October, 1913. £8,596. ■ Expenditure for October, 1914, £806; Oo ’.tober, 1915, £899 : January-October, 1914, ■£8,697; January-October, 1913, £9,155. —Dredge 404. •[ The following answers to questions asked by Mr Belcher concerning dredge *404 were tabled : 1 , 2. What was the gross cost of cquip- . ping dredge 404 to suit local requiie|i» ments? —£2,444 17s 4d. 3. I ask that a copy of the engineer’s *; report for the purchase of dredge 404 '-c from the Timaru Harbor Beard be submitted.—So far as can bo ascertained ' in Mr Mason's absence, no written re- ■ 1 port was submitted to the board. Any k' report was made verballv to the Works Committee, who reported to the board. —Dock Wharf at Port Chalmers.— Mr Platts moved—“ That £5.0C0 of the nallotted balance of the loan of £150,000 e‘allocated to the construction of the oak wharf at Port Chalmers.” He said uti if it was windy at present there was [ways risk to the'vessels getting in. It aa on, record that one vessel had. been elayed four days in getting in through -md. It was a work of necessity, and idrabla timber had been purchased ariier which now lay unused. There : was £IO,OOO of the 1909 loan unallotted, . and they proposed to spend £5,000 of this in rendering the working of the dock | * absolutely safe. U'v , Mr T. fjcollay seconded. He would . point out that the timber had been on i the ground for four years, so that all the I £6,000 would bo spent on labor—an important matter at this period. Given i-\ this wharf, they would he able to say . that no weather prevented vessels from f. getting into our dock. Shipping com--1“ panics running to a time-table would re- - gard this certainty of getting in at once p‘. as an important factor, and it would atT tract vesse's. Mr Hamel said that the weak point w „of tho motion was that they had no guar■F ahteo that the work could be done for ‘ £5,000. They wanted au assurance from i- their own official that it could bo done for ; that sum, and, personally, he had great ' doubt. Ho would move as an amendment that the advisability or otherwise of tho partial construction of this wharf ’ be referred to the board's engineer for ■ a report to next meeting. Personally, if the work could be dune for £5,000, Ha would not oppose it. Mr Hazlett seconded tho amendment, which ho declared, was on right lines. It was not right lor the board to commit themselves to a large expenditure, cspeci* " allv at this time. 'They had nothing ddiVjiitii as to what the cost was going to be. 'lho engineer hail once given it as his opinion Unit the wharf would cost not less than £IO,OOO, and had added that ho was not sure whether it would not cost V - more. Whore were they going to raise j’tho money? Was this a good time? In ” any case, was tin. wink an urgent one? Mr 1 oudon abo supported the amendSiqineut. Mr Taplcy .‘aid that when the boards • finances were better he would not oppose, .but at present it would be folly to set ii.!..’-'out ou this work on the assumption that *”'it would corf £5,000, and then have to leave it unfinished. They were sailing .elosa to the wind now, and quite lately ’-’■ they had had un intimation from the Go- : ?vernment that they (the Government) g’i could not help in any of tho hoard’s |-i loans. Even ii it would cost only £5,000, ' [. the time was nut now opportune. _ . ..Mr Ritchie said he did not think that Vi <ven if the work could he done for £5,000 sMthe board would be justified in going on ' A'th tho work. It would bo absurd, at leaet unbusinesslike, for tho board to start •i r _, fresh works until they saw their way Sh clear ;to complete certain other works .which were more necessary. ’. Mr Belcher eupported the motion. It Jf waa distinctly understood when the Dock --..Trust was in exist emu that the wharf was to bo constuicted to facilitate docking. In hia opinion, as a man who knew almost every dock in the world, this wharf was a . necesafcy. Tho engineer had said that the *;■ construction of the wharf and the alterations would cost £25,000. Other people ’/ equally capable of funning an opinion said {hat t could he done for £5,000. He had been present when a vessel nearly smashed £■ herself against the dock, when if tho ), wharf had been ttieui there would have f been no danger. i<; ■ Mr Walker, in supporting tho amondC. ■ rnent, dsclaied that one could hardly unri. r deretand Mr Belcher's argument. Mr .Plaits would he well advised to accept 's■' the amendment ami Jet it go at that. Tho hoard must be guided by their adviser. 7, Mr Loudon averted that the motion g, WM» out of order, because on October 5 An amendment’moved by Mr Scollay embodying the construction of tills wharf ■ itad teen lost; therefore the mutter could fe-nofc bo Iftought ou again for six months, f-T Recording to parliamentary procedure. Jo'. Tho Chairman held that the motion was Bfe-'-in, order. ,tts then replied to the criticisms The engineer’s estimate of ncluded tho whole work, and not le labor sufficient to do the work Id make the dock safe for entry mes. Mr Mason’s estimate intensive work in connection with vai of the sheer-legs, which was jmplated. Moreover, the motion brought' on the ground that vesit ho delayed, but because damit be done that- would' lay the ea to claims. However, ho had ion to the matter being held over ngineer’a report, and would with- . motion in favor of the ameni^-

—Victoria Wharf. — Mr Belcher asked certain questions in connection with work on Victoria wharf, these, together with the answers, being as follows: What was the cost of laying the reinforced concrete on the Victoria wharf? —£1.163 12s 6d. How far does it extend ? —636ft. Why was it not continued? —In the absence of engineer, can only suggest that increased shipping prevented the wharf beins; closed for a sufficient period to allow the concrete to mature. That the report of the engineer on the question of the decking of the \ ictoria wharf with reinforced concrete be submitted, and read to the meeting.— There is no record of any written report. In accordance with notice of motion on the same subject, Mr Belcher moved—- “ That it be an instruction to the engineer to proceed with and complete the reinforced ferro-concrete decking of the Victoria wharf; that any further work done in this direction should be designed so as to give a water outfall towards the harbor.” Mr Loudon raised a point of order as to whether the motion was not in conflict with a resolution passed by the board that no fresh works should be started, but the chairman ruled the motion in order. Mr Belcher’ said that the point he wished to make was that if. in the first instance, it was good and proper to deck Victoria wharf with reinforced concrete, which was supposed to preserve the wharf anil also (n give the best facilities for handling cargo, why was it not continued right along? He "was perfectly satisfied from his own observations that men handling valuable cargo had had to plough through puddles of water, lie considered that £l,lOO had been thrown away on the decking, and vot Port 'Chalmers could not get' £5,000 for their requirements. Tho position now was that if anything happened to the uuderstructure they would have to tear up all the stuff that had been laid down at a cost of £l.lOO. The portion that was done was such a lamentable failure that they discontinued it halfway. The concrete was worse than timber, because tlie water would not run otf it. Mr Walker seconded, remarking amidst laughter that Mr Belcher thought tho work a failure, and yet he wanted it continued. Tho Chairman said he did not know why Mr Belcher should move such a motion when he had been condemning the concrete at present down, but it had been explained to him itho chairman) that the reason the concrete was breaking up in the way it had been doing was that it had been used too soon. The motion was lost on the voices.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

HARBOR BOARD, Issue 15662, 28 November 1914

Word Count

HARBOR BOARD Issue 15662, 28 November 1914

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.