THE QUEEN’S STATUE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7444, 19 May 1911, Page 5

THE QUEEN’S STATUE

QUESTION OP REMOVAL. THAT £IOOO INSURANCE. Same months ago tho City Council, Laying decided that tiio Queen s statue ought to b© removed from its present, situation aud placed iu Kent terrace, cahed lor ccuuors ior tho removal, it was made a specification of the contract to bo entered into uiat the successiul tendered shomd be re* qmred to insure the statue for ,£looo* The lowest tender, Messrs W, H. Sdwards and Son, was not accepted because the tenderers cou d not comply with the insurance stipulation. Tho council decided that tho engineer should carry out the work with his own stab, vh© council being of opinion that if the work wore done in this way there would be less likelihood of breakage occurring through accident. Messrs Edwards and Son, by no means satisfied with this method of disposing 01 their tender, wrote a letter to the council suggesting that- tne business be reconsidered'.- • They pointed out .that their tender ought not to have-been rejected because of thecr inability to fulfil/-an impossible condition—impossible because no insurance company would undertake, such a risk. ■ The matter was reopened at the'meeting of the council last night, in a somewhat irregular way as it happened. Councillor Fitzgerald asked first of all whether such a letter had been received. He was informed by the Town Clerk that the letter had been received in the interregnum caused by the elections, and that tho Mayor had replied iff terms of the council’s previous resolution. .The lettei had then been put away on the same file with other correspondence on the, same subject, and therefore had not been laid before the council i nth© ordinary way. Followed a brief discussion as to the merits of a system of record under whicL such a thing could happen, but an incipient argument as to the merits of the case was cut short by the Mayor ruling it out of order, and stating that the only way in which the question could ‘ be reopened was by someone moving for the rescission 0.l the former resolution relating to it. To which Councillor Fletcher replied: It is easier to mov© a resolution than the statu©. He subsequently gave notice of motion, "That the resolution of April 20th to remove the Queen’s statue by day labour—and not to accept a tender—be rescinded."