The Star. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1882. NEW PLYMOUTH HARBOR.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume III, Issue 213, 22 February 1882, Page 2

The Star. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1882. NEW PLYMOUTH HARBOR.

The Harbor Board by a narrow majority recently decided to call for tenders fur constructing a section of the breakwater. As usual, where vested interests have been allowed to grow up, the intention of the Board has been critised and opposed strongly, and all sorts of arguments are being made use of to show, as the Herald puts it, that "it would be the height of folly to make any change of system so long as the the work costs less than 30s. per cubic yard." It is this question of cost upon which the whole matter rests. Can any member of tho Board now safely aver that, the work is only costing 30s ? Has due allowance been mado for maintenance of works, repairs of machinery, extras, shifting drift sand, alteration of plans of mixing house, renewals of damage by storms, new plant, &c. ? We doubt it. The Board has made many and grievous mistakes in 1b.2 past ; it is for aught we know to the contrary making others of considerable magnitude now, which may become only too apparent, if viewed by the eye of an expert, or tested by the still more searching probe of time. It may, perhaps, some day prove to have boon a great mistake to engage a consulting engineer, receive his report, but neglect to give effect to many of his more important recommendations. At pvesent the Board has departed from Sir John Coode's plans ; it is building a core of concrete in situ instead of in blocks ; and if tenders are called the Board must either require contractors to tender for the more expensive sort of masonry, or they must proclaim throughout the colony the fact that they are doing cheap work, but not the class of work they are supposed to be doing and are required by law to do : that, in fact, they have improved upon Sir John Coode's plans both in respect to the class of work and in respect to the proportion of cement used in mixing the concrete. The Board in these matters may have acted wisely as well as boldly, and it may be true that they are doing better work more cheaply than any contractor can attempt it. But the simple assertion by interested parties that such is the case, does not convince the ratepayers throughout the

rating district. The latier hold that there may l>e, and probably are. many sourcs of expense omitted from the recent monthly calculations of the cost per cubic yard of tbe breakwater: that much of tho apparent cheapnest is due to modifications of Sir J. Coode's plans, the wisdom of which modifications is questionable. Under tbe circumstances, tho ratepayers hold that a contract would offer less risk of failure; because, if duly checked by the Board's Biipervisora, a contractor could not depart from his conditions as the Board bave done, or might do to a greater extent if they considered it necessary to further cheapen the work per cubic yard. It remains Lo be seen whether the colony does noc contain an enterprising contractor whose price would rival the Board's, and from whom work of a certain definite standard could be enforced. When tenders are issued the public will know what standard of excellence the Board intends to insist upon, and will be able to say whether the Board would be content with such work from another as it is now giving to the ratepayers, or whether it will require a better. It will be time enough to talk of comparing cost when a standard of comparison has been fixed. The Board must define its own standard when denning a contractor's. Such a definition is much needed.