SHIFTING SANDS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19904, 25 September 1926, Page 14

SHIFTING SANDS.

HARBOUR BOARD’S NEW DREDGE. ANOTHER CHANGE OF POLICY SUGGESTED.

'FURTHER DELAYS CONDEMNED THE PROPOSAL DEFEATED. At the meeting of the Harbour Board last night Mr Anderson moved in accordance with notice: — 1. “That all resolutions standing in the minutes with respect to Mr Wilkie arranging for the calling of tenders in Britain, be rescinded.” 2. “That a cablegram be immediately forwarded to Mr Wilkie, instructing him to complete his investigations in Britain; return to New Zealand, and submit his proposals to the board.” No. 1 clause wae taken first. Mr Anderson said he had given deep thought to the question, and when the decision was come to by the board he did not want any feeling as had been displayed in the past. He thought they had placed their engineer (Mr Wilkie) in a very, very awkward position. They had sent Mr Wilkie away with no movement towards floating the necessary loan. They had also called in the assistance of another gentleman in London, which went to show they had no confidence in the engineer or themselves. They wanted a dredge 330 ft long, and he had noticed in the Home papers that one of the biggest dredges that had left England loi South Africa was only 240 ft long. He did not think their new dredge would be suitable for the channel, as it would lose a lot of time every day shifting to let steamers past. Mir Holler rose to a point of order. He did not see that they were dealing with the notice of motion. The Chairman said he thought, if they wore dealing with all the aspects of the dredge, that Mr Anderson was in order. Mr Anderson proceeded to deal with the costs of the dredging by dredge 222. Mr Driver also rose to a point of order. The Chairman said he thought Mr Anderson should confine himself to the actual terms of his motion. He could not, however, rule him out of order because he was referring to the size of the now dredge. Mr Anderson continued that Mr Wilkie might find that there was nothing in the Home Country of the size they wanted. He thought Mr Wilkie should come back and report to the board and their superintending engineer, and they would then know what was better suited to the harbour. The board should safeguard itself in the way ha proposed. Mr Moller said he would second the motion pro forma. Mr Cable said he thought the motion was a retrograde one. It was suggested that they should bring Mr Wilkie back and tell him what he had to do. He thought it was really “d -d absurd.’’ He thought Mr Anderson had been wanting in vision when he had. opposed the sending Home of Mr Loudon and their superintending engineer. Mr Wilkie was quite au fait with the whole position, and they could feel satisfied that they would get value for their money. He thought they should also have sent Home Mr Robertson, instead of relying on a firm of consulting engineers. He thought they should get on with the work. He favoured the three South Island harbour boards securing one big dredge, for use all round, instead of each securing big dredges. Mr Loudon said that he was going to oppose the resolution. “I think that the Otago Harbour Board will be getting a dredge five years hence if we are going to follow this system,” he said. “After all, there are only three members on this board capable of saying anything about the dredge, and they are Messrs Wilkinson and Cable and Captain M'Donald. It is absolutely Mr Wilkie’s responsibility, and if we have not faith in him to select a suitable dredge then we have no confidence in him.” He added that as soon as they had some communication from Mr Wilkie ho thought the air would be cleared. Mr Wilkie fully knew all about reducing the size of the dredge if he thought it expedient. Captain M’Donald could not understand why such a resolution had been brought before the board in the face of the reports received from their harbour master regarding the depth of water in the basin. The harbour master had stated that any dredge up to 400 ft was quite capable of dredging in their harbour. Mr Wilkie was a responsible officer of the board, and he was going to see everything while abroad, and if he wanted to modify his original specifications he would do so if he so desired. He was strongly opposed to a wait-and-see policy. He was going to vote in the interests of the har-. hour and the people of Otago.—(“Hear, hear.”) Mr Ramsay said he was going to oppose the motion. He thought it was a great pity that the board should have its time taken up in this way. Mr Wilkinson said he was going to support the motion.. He consider. 1 that it was in the best interests of the board that Mr Wilkie should return with his information and put the responsibility on the board. , Mr Sharpe said he was opposed to the motion. If Mr Wilkie considered it necessary to return with his proposals ho was sure he would do so. Delay was a serious matter, and they would bo faced shortly with the necessity of obtaining an outside dredge to shnift the silt from the basin. Dredge 222 was costing a lot every year to keep it in repair. The Chairman said he was sure Mr Wilkie would be glad to place the responsibility on the board. They had, as the result of the work of a former officer, a white elephant. A Member; What was that? The chairman did not enlighten the questioner. Ho said they did not v ant another white elephant. He thought Mr Wilkie should come back and consult with their mechanical engineer and the boara. If any mistake occurred the public would hold the board responsible. He was just as much in a hurry to get the dredge as any member of the board, but he thought dredge 222 would be able to carry on their work for some time yet. Their mechanical engineer said it wa; doing as good work as it was doing 25 years ago. While they had the authority to raise loans to the extent of £350,000, no arrangements had been made to float them. The engineer was to expend £120,000 on the drudge, and they had done nothing yet to get the m j"t^Moller: We can get the money. Members: Quite easily. . Mr Moller: We could close the tender to-morrow, I think. , , , The Chairman said the Government had limited the amount of by the Lyttelton Haroour Board to 5 2 per CO Mr Moller: Oh, well, Parliament has backed down before. The Chairman said they were asking their engineer to secure a dredge at a cost of something like £120,000, and they had no funds—— Members: That s not correct. The Chairman said he had the floor. Mr Cable said that the chairman had been away from the board for some time. Members had a right to express an opinion. The Chairman said ho knew that they had to get the permission of the Minister of Finance before they could get the money, and the interest might be limited to 5J per cent., possibly 5i per cent. Mr Loudon: Can I make a statement. The Chairman said “No,” unless something had been said reflecting on him, or he wanted to make an explanation. Mr London said he wanted to reply to a reflection on him—a very serious reflection. „ „ The Chairman: Well, go on. Mr Loudon said that serious reflections had been made cn him as ex-chairman. He would like to correct two misstatements made by the chairman. One was the implication that the hoard had asked Mr Wilkie to call tenders without knowing that the financial matters had been fixed That was not so. The second was the remark that dredge 222 was doing as good wtrk to-day as it was 2a years ago. He would like tb ask Mr Robertson if that were true. Mr Robertson that the dredge was doing just as good work, but at a far greater cost. Mr Anderson, m reply, said he was not dictating the policy to Mr Wilkie. Now

the board was saying that there was a certain amount of elasticity about the size of the dredge. The bugbear was being put forward that they must not lose time. They had never had a concrete position before them, and if they were going to have elasticity it went to show that the board did not know its own mind. The board would place the whole responsibility on Mr Wilkie, and he did not want that to occur. The board had never asked their mechanical engineer (Mr Robertson) to give his opinions on the dredge. Mr Gow; 1 did, at this table. Mr Loudon: Mr Wilkie collaborated with Mr Robertson. Mr Anderson said he was blamed for shuffling with the dredge business. That was not so. Time would tell, and he would leave it for time to tell. The motion was lost on the voices. The Chairman said the motion being lost, there was no need to go on with clause No. 2. AN UNUSUAL LICENSING CASE. TRANSFERS OE RESPONSIBILITY. THE CHARGE DISMISSED. (Pee United Pbess Association.) INVERCARGILL, September 24. A licensing case presenting some highly unusual features was heard at Otautau on September 13. The defendant was George Cunningham Bain, licensee of the Wairio Hotel, who was charged with permitting the sale of liquor after hours. In giving his reserved decision to-day, Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., said that it appeared that recently the licensee left on a visit to Christchurch ,leaving the hotel in charge of his wife. Soon after his departure his wife also left-for Christchurch, and delegated the management of the hotel to a boarder named Gaines. Gaines happeend to be away at the time the alleged - offence was committed, and left the place in charge of the licensee’s daughter. The latter left for • town for the evening, and handed the keys over to her brother, who supplied drinks to a temporary boarder and three friends. The boarder paid, and, as his status was not questioned by the posecution, the Magistrate said that the case Vould be dismissed. A charge against the licensee’s son, that being a person other than the licensee, he supplied liquor to a person who was not legally permitted to be charged, was also dismissed.