THE HARBOR BILL.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 84, 24 December 1887, Page 2

THE HARBOR BILL.

A labge number of people, especially the members of the Harbor Board, are greatly exercised over the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the amending Harbour Bill. There was considerable surprise felt that there should have been opposition to tbe Bill in the Upper House, for, with the exception of the clause relating to the rating powere, it was considered certain that the Bill would pass in its entirety without any objection. The following clause which has been inserted is sufficient to make the Board seriously consider its interpretion : "Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act contained it shall not be lawful for the Gisborne Harbor Board without the sanction of the General Assembly, first had and obtained to enter into any engagement or contract, or to incur any liability, whereby, together with the money heretofore expended by the Board, out of the loan, and the estimated expenditure of such Board, any sum in excess of £65,000 pounds shall be in any manner paid, engaged, promised or pledged. Every member of the Board who consents to the payment, engagement, promiae or pledge of any money in excess as aforsaid shall be liable for every such offence to a penalty not exceeding one

hundred pounds, to be recovered with full costa of suit in any court of competent jurisdiction, and it khall be the duty of the Controller and Auditor-General to institute necessary proceedings for the recovery of any such penalty in the manner as directed by Section 13 of the Harbours Act 1878, and Amendment Aot 1886, which shall be applicable for the purpose. The clause appears to have been so worded as to mystify the moat clear headed. On the one hand the Bill says no money over the sum of £65,000 can be paid, engaged, pro mlsed or pledged, and there are penal penalties provided to enforce this provision. Looking carefully at the wording of the clause we can hardly coma to any other conclusion than that it means that the Board should not expend more than the sum mentioned from the time the work was commenced. Now we have already spent £72,000, if we include the Sinking Fund of £25,000, and if the interpretation of the clause la as we have said, the Board seems to bo in an awkward fix, for ths only question to consider before stop* ing all works until next session will be whether the £lO,OOO borrowed from the loan account, and which the Government have allowed the Board to pay back in instalments, can be reckoned in the £72,000 expended. If this is not included the Board would have sufficient funds for, probably, until next session, which will be in April. It is greatly to be regretted that the stoppage of the work or otherwise should rest on such a contingency. Mr Graham will be able to give the Board his opinion as to what effect the clause will have on the progress ot the work when he arrives.