NELSON HARBOR BOARD.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 95, 7 May 1903, Page 2

NELSON HARBOR BOARD.

A CHANG fcUIF POLICy, THE DAY pABQim SCHEME OANDONED. • THE CHANNEL TO BE CUT BY ! CONTEACT. I A special meeting of the Nelson Harbour Board was held yesterday afternoon in Committee to consider matters arising out of recent correspondence with the engineer to the Board. There were present — Mr J. Graham, M.H.R. (Chairman), Messrs Webster, Franklyn, McKenzio, M.H.R., Field, Best, Hanby, Talbot, Trask, M.L.C., and Finney. After having sat in Committee for a couple of hoursj during which period there was earnest discussion of the whole question of operations at the Boulder Bank and the. Harbour improvement worlls generally, the Board resumed, and it was repoi-Wff H'.ftt it Had be'eii resolved fey. v . votes to 4 that the resolution of the 10th December, 1902, deciding to carry out the wor]s of. cutting the channel in the Boulder Bank by Jay labour be reed ttdod,, and that tenders be called for cutting channel .arid, other necessary work connected therewith. . The division, called for by Mr Webster, was as follows: Ayes, 6.— Trask (mover), McKenzie, Field, Best, Talbot, the Chairman. Noes, 4.— Webster, Franklyn, Hanby, Finney. The motion to confirm the report of the Committee was carried on a similar division called by Mr Webster. Before the motion to confirm the report of the Committee was put, Mr Franklyn said that nothing had given him greater enrprise thmi the division in. Committee: | The Bt.iar.fl had e'li anged the pblicy on which it iuid been elected, and he advised ! all who had voted for that change to re- I feign, as they had broken their pledges, j Another serious iu.-ttt.er wai that this ini= portanfc resolution had boon carried Vitho\it a moment's thought, not even by the by-laws. The Board was acting impriidently by not submitting this motion to the Engineer. The Board was giving up its past and acting against the Engineer; and both Mr Reynolds and the public would be thunderstruck. The motion had been carried by the vote of two nominated, not elected, members. He hoped the Board was not going to act hastily, for the matter was very serious. He felt that- if the Board wore wise no action would be taken Hll next meeting. He was tied hand and foot by the majority, but he entered his pi-otest. Mr Finney was also thunderstruck at the change of front of some of the members of the Board. Mr Hanby said he felt humiliated that the Board bad ehirkod itfl I'esponsibllU tios merely because certain ujffieultieß had arisen. He saw around him two ex= poriencpd legislator's; Cup of thflni well versed in carrying out public wdrks ; .Wo veteran Mayors ; the Chairman of the County Council ; another member of the Council ; an, experienced ffh'iiief ; ,and ail experienced business jnart. He himself was the only weak business element at the Board, and yet the Board had Abandoned its policy on the first trouble arising. Ho kne^V and folt that the Board would bo saved .si. 1 good deal of trouble? by the resolution that had been carried, but the Board was not there to shirk trouble and responsibility. Mr Webster agreed that in a manner those who had voted for the motion had deceived their constituents. It had been understood that tho Board should be guided by the adviec of the Engineer, and that the work si: child be carried Out by the Board ilnder the stiperyision df the. Engineer. This had now been set aside. When the . Engineer assured the Board that he could carry out the work by day labour, the Board was bound to accede to his opinion on a subject on which tho Board as laymen could know nothing. The Chairman ami My Trn.sk said that when the E'lgimier wtls i'.sk"pd .t'(j take 1 up the work, as a contract he declined. The Chairman said the Board, not Mr Reynolds, suggested day labour. There was no strong recommendation from the Engineer to carry out the work by day labour, but the Engineer hrtd endorsed the method. . Mr Webster said Mr Reynolds had in that room declared that the Board had done well to undertake the work by day labour. Mr Field said he had made no pledge to the ratepayers, Otherwise than that there should be no rate if possible. He had understood that the Engineer proposed to do work night and day to come within his estimated time. He knew that night work was always unsatisfactory, and hence there \vo\Ud be a saving by contract labour, within ordinary periods of work. Mr Talbot said lie was one of the "weak minded " members who- had changed his mind. The Chairman said he believed the whole work would be carried out better by contract than by day labour, and therefore he had changed his mind. He had been wrong and those who had originally supported the proposal, or their informants, had had i.nore prescience. Mr McKenzie said he felt sure that while a contractor would charge about 10 per cent on his outlay, the cost would be 20 per cent less than if the work were done by day_ iabour. If the tenders were higher than the Engineer's estimate then the Board mnst not accept them. The position of the Board would be improved by the work being done by tender, and it would blow exactly what it was doing. He was there to protect the ratepayers of his district from a rate, and he did not think the work could be done for .£BO,OOO or <£90,0C3. If it did not cost more than that he would not growl. It was resolved to return all testimonials of applicants for employment, and to inform them that owing to the change in tho system of carrying out the work their services would not be required. Mr Hanby moved, Mr Best seconded, and it was carried, " That the Engineer, or in his absence his representative, be requested to attend all regular meetings of the Board in his official capacity as Engineer to the Board." Mr Webster asked if it was competent for him to move that the Board repudiate the pxirchase of the tug Gordon. The Chairman thought this was a mattor outside the business for which the meeting was called. It was resolved that the town members, including Mr McKenzie, M.H.R., be appointed a committee to consider all matters coming up for consideration by the Board between meetings, and report to the Board, any other member in town at the time being also on the committeo. Before the Board went into Committee, and on the members assembling, the appended circular letter from Mr Reynolds, C.E., was found addressed to each member, including the Chairman : — [Unofficial,! " Nelson, 6th May, 1903. " Dear Sir. — I am taking the liberty of addressing you upon present friction existing between the Chairman of your Board and myself. I fully realise and appreciate the interest which Mr Graham takes in the harbour works, but I must protest against the disregarding of my advice upon sevei'al matters, an-1 on other occasions acting independently of my advice, with the result that the present strained relations exist, the commencement of portions of the work postponed, foreshadowing delays which should . not have occurred. 1 "It is far from my desire to seek a quarrel, or in any way usurp or trench upon matters outside my sphere, my desire being to work with the Board in the expeditious and successful carrying out of the harbour project, and to be asked and to give advice upon the various engineering matters as they from time to tima occur. "I would suggest as the solution of the difficulty that the Board request my, attendance at its official meetings when engineering matter is under discussion, or when absent from Nelson or otherwise unable to attend, that my assistant, Mr Lawry, be present. "I remain, etc., "(Signed) Leslie H. Reynolds." After an informal discussion of this t letter, it was unanimously resolved, that as misconceptions might arise from the first paragraph the Board had every confidence in its chairman, and felt that all actions that had been taken by him had had the sanction, authority, and endorsement of the Board and been reported to the Board. The proceedings terminated at about 4.20 p.m.