THE FLOATING CRANE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14142, 18 August 1909, Page 8

THE FLOATING CRANE.

FOR USE AT AUCKLAND.

A TENDER ACCEPTED.

Finality in regard to the question of the purchase of a floating crano was reached by the- Auckland Harbour Board at its meeting yesterday. The, Board, in committee, recommended that, subject to delivery and payment in July, 1911, the Board accept the tender of the English firm of Messrs. Cowan, Sheldon, and Co., for an 80-ton floating crane at £14,550. When the recommendation came up for confirmation,. Mr. H. J. Bradney moved as an amendment that the matter be'referred back to the Board in committee for reconsideration. They already had the sheer-legs, he said, and he could see no reason in spending such a large sum on a floating crane. The engineer had told them that he could save a great deal of money by getting the floating crane. Well, of course, so long as they had confidence in the engineer they must abide by his opinion. They did not, even if they had the new crane, need up-to-date accommodation, including messroom and a galley, which would not be used. They would have to keep a crew to keep the vessel going, and he protested against finch a gross waste of public funds. Mr. A. J. Entrican seconded the amendment.

Mr. W. J. Napier, in opposing the amendment, said that thanks largely to their engineer they now had an up-to-date port, but to make its equipment complete they must have a floating crane. As for the sheer-legs, the Admiralty would not accept a floating crane in lieu of these. Apart from the question of general com-mercial-utility, the crane would save its cost within the first two years.

The engineer (Mr. W. H. Hamer), in reply to Mr. J. B. Macfarlnne, said that he proposed to use the crane in connection with the walls of the eastern reclamation, and on the first portion of this a saving of £10,000 would bo effected by the use of the machine. As for the elaborate accommodation, that rested with the Board; they need not have it unless it was required. There would be need to have a crew constantly on the vessel. As to having a 40-ton crane, the difference in cost would not be great enough to make such a purchase desirable.

Mr. H. M. Smeeton eaid that the difference in cost between a 60 and an 80 ton crane, according to the lists received, ranged only from £1000 to £1830. Mr. J. K. Kneen, in supporting the amendment, said that the question had not yet been fully considered, except by the members of the Standing Committee, who were really responsible for the recommendation. As to accommodation on the crane, if they did not provide it the Marine Department would step in, or, if the Department did not do so, the Seamen's Union soon would. He did not suppose they had more than two lifts a year during the last 10 years, and yet they proposed to spend £20,000 on a thing that was absolutely useless.

Mr. G. W. Basley supported the amendment.

The amendment was lost by seven votes to four. The motion for the acceptance of the tender was accordingly carried.