THE ALTERED PLANS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2273, 23 September 1897, Page 20

THE ALTERED PLANS.

At the meeting on the 16th of the Education Board the plan of the top flat of the new offices was considered in committee, and on resumiisg in public,

Mr P. B. Fhasbe moved — "That one of the upper rooms of the new buildings be set apart for tho me of the teachers of Ofcago, and a committee, consisting of the chairman, Mr Galliw*y, and the mover, draw up conditions under which it may be used, and report to the board."

Mr MacGhegob would not oppose the motion, but ba was convinced that the room would not be used for the purpose for which it was to be set apart. Mr J. F. M. Fraser said they should t'y it, anyway. The motion was carried. The Chairman said the next business was the adjourned d^scutsion on tho altered plans. Mr J. F. M. Fbasee remarked that if the matter was adjourned any longer tie building would be finished before tbe dircuarion. Mr Snow said the question had been well Lhreshed cut, and he would only 3<iy that he Endorssd the letter of Mr P. B. Fraser in tho Timee, wkich placed the matter fairly before the public. He thought that the less said about the wlaole question the batter. He wou'd support Mr Fraser'smotiou.

Mr Clark and Mr M'Ke&row did not wish to s*y anything. Mr J. I. M. Fraser said there waß one matter which he wished to direct attention to. In Mr P. B. Fraser's resolutions there were two adverbs which would give the outtide public the impression that the board' were saddling the bulk of the blame on one officer. H« did tot know that that was intended by the board. Ik w&s not his view, and if it vrss not the intention, of the board as a whole be would suggest that the words be elided. What he objected to was the use ef the word- »' gravely" in setting out the share of the blame allotted to the secretary.

The other members •agreed with Mr Fra3er, and- Me P. B. Fraser agreed that the words should be deleted.

Tbe motions wt-re then altered to read as follow :—": — " (1) That Iho board fiuds that the architect, who bad all along approved of the front entrance being from Jetty street, «riginat*d the alteration of the signed plan from Crawford street, aud that the secretary agreed to and approved of the plan baing thus altered.' (2) That the architect committed an error of judgment in Hot personally seeing that the board knew that the Jetty street plan was the beat, and in altering, or agreeing to alter, the signed plan without communicating with the board or its chairman ; that (ho secretary transgressed hiß proper duties in interfering with the architect cr in giving the architect any approval, implied or expressed, to alter the board's plan. 'The secretary was also at fault in not at once communicating a knowledge of the proposed change to the board at its first meeting."

The Chairman said : Referring to this inquiry, I would like to say that it has been a very paiuful bfciog to me to see so much feeling allowed to come iuto ib, as ou an inquiry of this kind members want all their cool and calm judgment to arrive at a fair verdict on the evidence b»fere us. lam sa'i-fi^d that the whole difference in the first place arrS3 through a,' misunderstanding, which, it seems to me, w?s saused somewhat in this way : Mr Pryde and Mr Somtrville discussed the ground plan of the building, showing foe entrance from Jetty street. This they both agree did occur. The difference betweeu them arises as to time, or at what stage the coufereucq took place ; and Mr Pcyde £u«rgesied some alterations as Jo Iho internal arrangement 3 , some of which Mr Somerville curried out aud soma of which ho did not, and bbafc on Mr Ptyde approving of the alteration suggested Mr Bomerville took ib for granted that he approved of the alteration of the entrance from Crawford street to Jetty street. That is my impression of how the first ' Misunderstanding arose, and one reason for my thinking so is this : that it entirely agrees with Mr Somerville's statement to me ween I lirab spoke to him on the matter, and also agrees with what he stated to the board when he wts called in on the Friday when I first acquainted the board of the alterations. The statement Mr Somerville first made to me — (he statement he made to the board on the Friday — and Mr Park's evidence are all practically the same, and agree on every point. Mr Somerville only goes further than Mr Park, and goes on to say that "Mr Pryde agreed to the alterations, and he »ow denies haying done so." You will reaembcr that I repeated in his presence, at the board table, the statement Mr Somerville made to me, and he did not take exception to anything I then said. For these reasons, among others, I am forced to come to the conclusion (hat in the first instance the misunderstanding arose by Mr Pryde'a concurring in certain alterations in the internal arrangements consequent on the alteratioDS of the entrance from one street to the other ; that Mr Somerville took it for granted that by concurring in the internal arrangements he also agreed to the external alterations — a very natural conclusion to come to. Mr Fryde saya that he did not agree to the entrance being altered to Jetty itreet, but if Mv Somerville did shift it to that itreet he thought the internal arrangements would be better for the working of the office. Of course he denies ever having discussed the shifting of the entrance, as he says he knew that the mind of the board was that it should be'- from Crawford street, but he agrees that he did discuss the internal alterations consequent on the shifting of the entrance, but ■was not consulted and never knew of the proposed alterations till the plan of sunn

alterations was sketched cat iv pencil. This is borne out by tho architects statement to "myself, and aloo his statement; to the board on the Friday, and is corroborated by Mr Park's evidence which he gave at this inquiry. I would like to s*ty a few words with ref«rc-nce to what was said by members on Wednesday sight, when we were considering tho motion : and amendment now before the meeting Wi'h ' a good deal of what Mr Eraser then naid I j | thoroughly agree, although I do not agree with j all ho said. With regard to what Mr MacGregor ■ . s»id — well, I am in a fix as to how I should ! characterise what he said. I have not been ! able to satisfy myself that he wss really in I earnest at all. I would be very sorry to have j i to coino to the conclusion that he thinks h's j fellow-members are so low in the scale of int&lligenceas to be influenced either one way or other by what he said ; as it se?ms to tee all he said was nothing more or leas than pure sophistry, and I would like to point oub to members what peemed to ma a good reaso.i for coming tothtt conclusion. You will rt-member, gentlemen, that wo heard a great deal that j night from Mr MacGregor about a plan j of a building thowiug the entrance from | Jetty sr,reeb which no one would [ acknowledge ever haying seen or heard of, excepb Mr Somerville himself and JMr Nichol. The whole of Mr MscGregor's ! argument was based on the existence of that j plan, and also of the knowlsdge Mr Pryde had of its existence. It seemed to me that he laid as much stress on that plan as affecting the position as if the board had chosen it for the plan of the building. And I would like to say here that Mr MacGregor scarcely, it at all, during the whole of his remarks referred to the plane prepa-ed by tha order of the board— the ylnu chosen for the building or the plan under which the building is being constructed. The plan he told us so much aboub (I mean the one which no one but Mr j Somerville and his assistant , ever saw), what are tbe facts in connection with it ? They are these : when Mr Soraerville found that the boaid intended to build at all he seerua to have sketched out a plan in pencil to give himself some idea of whab sort of a building i wou'd fit the section. This ho evidently did | for his own information, as this plan, be it remembered, was sketched out before be had ! any instructions -.whatever from the board to j prepare two or three different p!»ns for ; tho board to choose ona from. — (Mr j MacGregor : " No.") Now, for the iifa of me, I cannot see what any plan he racy have d«awn, either in pencil or otherwiue, previous to his getting the above instructions, has to do with the matter of this inquiry, or how there can be a connection in any way with the alterations of the plans the hoard approved of and a plan sk&tcbed out in pencil previous to his getting the boird's instructions to prepare plans for the building. I myself, directly after the May meeting, instructed Mr Somerville to have three sets of plans ready for the June meeting, so that they couM thus make a choice of one. I did so, as yon will remember, by the order of the board. This he did ; and the bosird chose one of those so prepared, which I then signed as approved by the board. Now, what has any plan ha may have made before he gob that instruction to do with this inquiry ? And it is to a pUn prepared (if it was prepared at all) prior to the architect getting the above instructions that Mr MacGrfgor made so much of the other ' ni^ht. The?e are my reasons for characterising what Mi 1 MacGregor said the other night as pure sephiatry, because he based bis whole arguments on matters which to my mind had no connection whatever with the subject of this inquiry. There 13 one point which Mr MacGregor very carefully kept away from the other nigh^, and it is thi^ : You will remember tba>; he blamed the secretary for interfering with the plans at all; and he made o'ifc that if it bad nob been for hi* interference Mr Somerville would have laid pl*ns before us ouly showing the entrance from Jetty street. Now, what are the fr.cts of the case ? They are these : At the May meeting the opinion was unanimously expressed by the members of the board that the entrance would be from Crawford street ; that was at the meeting at which the beard instructed the Finance Committee to have two or three pans ready for the following meeting. That, I am sure members will agree, was the case, and that Mr Pry da knew this seems ta me gcod warrant for his insisting (as Mr Somerville states in his evidence he did) that the entrance should be from Crawford street, which Mr MacGregor so much blamed him for the other night. Mr MacGregor also I tried to make some capital of the architect not reporting to the board direct in writing. I would just like to inform members that ever since I have had any connection with the j board every communication of any importance whatever the architect has to make he always i does so in writing. Now, with reference to what Mr MacGregor ssid as to my causing certain alterations as to the internal doors and a chimney, he said that I caused them to be altered because the secretary wanted them. I simply s&y that I caused them to be altered because I found they were not where they ought to be, nor where they were shown on the plan under which the buildißg was being constructed — that is, the Jetty street plan. See what the architect says in pages 8 and 9of the evidence. Mr Mac--Gregor tries to make out that we did nob consult our architect on the plans of the building ; and if we had consulted him this bungle would not hara occurred. Now, Ido not know what meming he put 3on the word consult, but if I had approached him professionally in the same way &s the board approached the architect in this matter, I am afraid he would have considered it at a consultation for the purpose of making up the bill of costs ; aad rightly so, as I would expect to get the best professional advice he omild orive me. So I expected the architect to

have (jiveo bha board Ilia beat profesaioaal advice on the matter of ths buildiug when he was instructed to pr«pAre pl&os ; and for him fee say thab he was nob consulted is, iv my opinion, an insult to the intelligence of the board. Now, Mr Raimay said the other night, while we were discuifting bhis matter, that he had nob come to a decision on tho evidence at all, bub had come to a decision oh something which ha said occurred outside this inquiry.'

Mr MAcGßKtioa thought that what Mr Rameay said was that ho had come to a decision, not from whab he had heard, bub from his reading of the evidence.

Mr P. B. FRA.SKR and Mr J. F. M. Fraser supported the chairman's version.

The Chairman continued : I have some delicacy in characterising that statement as it decerves, aud will leave the members of the board and the public (to whom he talks bo much) to characterise it as they each please. He said th*t the mafett-r to be inquired into was — " which of the officers was guilt/ of f*lsehood ? Aud that some members E«em«d to fight shy of this issue, and atttmpts were made to obscure it." Now, I am not going to fight shy of that issue, but I am going to come to a decision oa the evidence and whab I kuovr of my owu knowledge. Mr R»ras»y saya that " a rnvjority of the board always rnoged themselves around the secretary to uphold him in his actions ; so much so, in fact, that even the chairmanship had actually b«en a gift of th« secretary, and tbafc no man could occupy the chair without taking an oath of f^lty to the secretary." He said " that the present chairman had done so, and that was the cause o't the unbearable state of affairs iv the board." Now, wbeti he said this, and a good deal mor« that the reporters had the good sense to take no notice of, I would nob have given him tha satisfaction of replying to whab he said if he had nob alludad to myself so pointedly. He evidently went on the principle that it he threw plenty of mud some of it might stick. This is the line Mr R-xmsaT h»s frequency taken since he has had a connection with the board, and he has been left alon* simply because the othec members will nob come down to bis level and discuss his allegations on his own pUtforna. Neither do I intend to do to now. Ib h*s been Mr Ramsay's usual custom, whenever any of the members difftivd with him on any subject, to accuse them of being under " official influence." He ■will, nob allow the members of this board to hava a mind of their own. They must do one of two things — either swallow all hi 3 opinions, else they are under "official influence " I flitter myself that I know juat as well as Mr Rttnaay the relations that should exist in an office such as this bebween tbe numbers and the officials ; and if I did not I don't think ib would be him I would consult if I wanted knowledge on that matter. And I will say this : if ib is nob righb and proper for the members and officials to be on iftttmato terms it is full time that there wa« a change in the members, or officials, or both. And I would lika to say that I will nevec bo the shadow of any man, eithar in this board or out of it ; nor will I be the cabopaw of .my man, although mor-a clever th«.n myself, and it would be a good thing for Mr Ramsay if he could say tbe same. Unfortunately for him, iv this instance there is likely to be s. very large majority of the board against him in the verdi.-t he has come to, even although he has found ib outside the cvideuce. With refereuce to whit he says as to my being in tbe chair, I have only to say that the position is not of my seeking. When the members of this board did me the honour to elect me to the chair I uuderstood that I had the confidence of the boari. And if I no longer retain that confidence they have only to say so. I shall nob retain this position for a day if I no longer rebain the confidence the board gave ma when they pub me here. Of cou-se I do nob .expecb to have tbe confidence of anjone who has no confidence or trusb in anything und?r heaven bub themselves. That has been the bane of bhn board. Some of its members have an utt«*r distrust of everything bub themselves, an-i anyone who has the presumption to rliff.-r from them docs so from a corrupt motive. Now, I would like to say this to Mr Ramsay : tint I have lived in the 1 world pomewhat longer than he has done, and prob*bly Been more phases of huimn nature than he ha?, and I have never yeb seen any man who distrusted (he whole of mankind bub was himself worth watching. That is the conclusion I have corae to long ago, aud I have never yeb seen cauee to change my views on that question. Now with reference to the whole question, I would like to j»ay a few words, and I may miy here that I think tbafc both the secretary aud architect are blamable. The secretary is to blame for nob acquaioting the board that it WR3 suggested to alter the plf.n thai; the board approved of — thab is, if he knew of the alterations, and I think of that there ia no doubt. The architect is also to b'.ame in that he altered th? plans and commenced the work on such altered plans knowing th&t the board had approved of one plan, and also knowing that the board had expressed their approval of the entrance to the building being from Crawford street. Even suppos"n^ it was as he asserts in hi« letter, that the secretary ordered tho alteration?, he had no right;, knowing that the board had nob been consulted, to deviate from the approved plan till he consulted tbe board on the matter. Bub ib h*s been made clear to my noind by the evidence, and from my own knowledge, that tbe secretary did nob order the alterations, and anyone who will argue that thore is no distinction between ordering alterations and concurring ia bhe samp, as'w*s done the other night;, is albogebher beyond my comprehension. I asa altogether of opinion that the architect is primarily to blame, for he is responsible to see that bhe b3»rd's intentions are I carried ant in his department, and Mr Somerville acknowledges that be knew that the board had nob been consulted en the alterations made. It s«ei»s to me that if the architect had followed his usual practice in forwarding his

opinion in writing, on the advisability of alter ing the approved plan, all this trouble would hnve been obviated. If he had done so it would h*ve then come before the board iuthe ordinary course, and the secretary would not htve had the excuse he now makes — " that ha entirely forgot the matter " — for we are all aware that auy communication Mr SomerviHo has to make to the board he' always does in writing. I would like to draw your attention to the arcbitteb's evidence. I would refer to pages 8 and 9 as to wh»t he says about the alterations of the internal doors ; also in page 14, what he nays about the inspectors seeing the plans. I have very good reason for b'litving that Mi- Goyen did go iuto hi* office to se« which room was to be alloted to the inspectors, and I have just an good r«aion for believing that Ml- Pryde did not take him in, but that he went in alone and of his own motion, and Mr Pryde wks not in the architect's room at all while Air Go/en was there ; neither was anyone elsa but Mr Somerville and him»«lf and possibly Mr Nichol. I would also refer to his erideuce in page 74, with reference to the |»urchs.se of th« bricks for tho*building. He «ay« : " I bought bricks at 35* when they were selling at £2. It would not be f«.ir to take diAcounb off that man ; in fact, he naid he would nob allow it." Well, when Mr Bomerville m»de that statement he showed a great de'ect of memory, for I had something to do with the purchase of the bricks, "and this ia what occurred : It came to ray knowledge while in Danedin in June tb.it on tbe first of the month of July the price of bricks was to be r»i»ed from 35i to £2. and I at once asked tbe secretary to geb Mr Somerville to go out to the brickworks the following morning and secure what he required at onco. I would probably have asked him myself to have done so, but he was not in the ofiSce. I saw him the following forenoon, after he had been out, and a«ked him if ho h»d got th*m, and he said "he had," but that he •• could not have got pressed bricks' till November, »«d ke hkd taken the others ; therefore the w*lls would have to be cemented outside. * That ia exactly what did recur ; and hia »t»t«m«nt about this matter ib his evidence coitfirais m» in the belief that his memory it nofe t» be dope*ded on. I am clearly of opinion that in whak he says he does not iat«nd to in any way deviate from the truth, but his m»n>ory is very much *fc fault ; thut I firmly believe is the reason of all the cause of difforesce between the parties to this inquiry. I do not for a moment tkink that either party is intentionally saying what is not true ; but both are persuaded that they arc absolutely correct in what they sty about this matter, and it is only from a defect of ntantory th&t the difference has arisen, and I venture to cay that 1 have sbovrn that Mr SooaerrilU'a mt-mory ia not by any m«ans so good as i* night bo. There is a clause in the resolution before the meeting that I do not agree with at all, and it is this: "The secretary gravely transgressed his proper duties in interfering with the architect, or in giving the architect any approval, implied or expressed, to alter th« board's plans." This paragraph Ido not agree with, for it has nob been proved th*fc the ieeratary interfered in any way with tke arekitect further than to sty that the entrance sk*uld be from Crawford Btreet, which he well knew was the expressed wish of the board. A good deal has been said about the architect, through hi* persistecce, saving the board from having tht building spoilt, as it would have beea if tie entrance had been from Crawford street. Now, although I agree that the prent-nb plan is an improvtvmsnfc on the oue of which we sanctioned the elevation, I am also of opinion that we could have just as good a ground plan with the entrance from Crawford street as the one on which the building is now being erteted. The conclusion I have corae to is that th« secretary is to bl&ms for uob acquainting the be^rd of the intended alteration*. But th« areaiteet 1 , to my mmd r must bear the whole blaate of the alterations, as he and he only i« resp«»siWe in his department to sea that tho intention of the board is carried out, and he acknowledges that he knew what- tho mind of tke board was in this case. That, it seems to me, you cannst get beyond, and it is absurd to try and shiffe the blame ou to anyone else.

Mr Gallawat said he was very glad t« hear the remarks that had been niado by the chairman, for he thought he coald now claim his support for a motion which h« intended to move afterwards, and that was that the architect should be held entirely responsible in fut«re for the c&rrjing oub of works. Ilofarriag to the question before them, it seemed to him that thera were two wajs of arririag at a c»mcl«sion in a matter of thi.s sort : (1) By slartißg with the assumption that aoraeoue was tolling an uatruth, and (2) that both side* were trying to tell the truth, and then arrive at the eouc'.usion of what was the truth. H« belUved that the majority of the membera of the board h*d tried to approach this subject calmly. His own impression of the matter was that Mr Somerville undoubtedly originated the idea of tbe frontage to Jetty street, bub he was equ*lly certain that Mr Somervillo never pr»ceed«d with that building in the face of what he kaew of the board's resolution unless he had thought th-.fc he had the sanction of the superior executive officer at his buck. Whether he h»d or hud it not he was nob detftra«i»i»g now. It seemed to him, however, that tbe sanction might very reasonably have l»eea given, for th'sa matters were pr&clically left to the officers.

Mr P. B. Fraser: They were l»ffc ia a very elastic state.

Mr Gallaway : Yes, aud there was no resolution iv the minute bcok that such a building was to be proceeded with at all.

Mr P. B. FftASER. : Don't expose the board any more.

Mr Galiawat continued that primarily the Finance Committee were to blr.me, secondly the board, and thirdly the officials. He would sap<

porb the resolutions carried by the board ia committee.

Mr P. B. Fbasbr, in reply, said that, »s the members of the board were aware, he had taken the opportunity of submitting wlufche believed to be a fair itabenanb of the .matter to' the coluwns of the Daily Tines, and he woald sava time by submitting that letter as his speech. What ha particularly wished to emph*sise was that a grant; iujuatice h*d been done all ooacrrued by the bitteraasß introduced into the inquiry by the atbeaipt to Sad a liar when there bad been n» offence wortk lying about on either Bide. He believed that svery one of the parties (Ifr Somerville and Mr Pryde and the witnesits) had told the truth to the best; of their recolUetion. Quite obviously nothing could clear either stcretary or architect of bUme ia their respectiro spheres ; but the bUme ia no respect toachod the honour of either of them, and the whole event was bub the natural oufceorn« of the present o>naponition of the board, where there were more critics than workers or administrators.

me.ua m

Th« Chairman said Mr Gsllaway had abated thab he took the blame as a member of tho Fiaanee Committee. The speaker could 'not agr«e with him on that point. There was a cart at h duty relegated to the Finance Commit tre. They were asked to see that tha architect provided plans, with the power t» decide an to one of them and bring up a report. The cemmifctee attended to that. Th&y brought up a report and had the pUni laid on the table. The board adopted the report, and there the duties of bhe Finance Committee ended. Mr MacQrkgor said that he had been making an inquiry in regard to the chairman's statomeob as to the purchase of bricks. Tha spoaker had «e«B Mr Somerville aud asked him his imprension. He said he actually bought th« bricks before the sale was mentioned. He bought them at 35s before the chairman mentioned the subje»t to him. - The Chairman : I said so. Mi-J. P. M. FinsHß : The chairman told the secretary Mr MacGubsor : Tbe architect teld him l»tfor* th« subject was Mentioned, lam told that after l»uri>g the bricks he received the chairrn«»'s »e<ta*f c. ' - * Tha Chaikhait : Nonsense. Mr MacGbkuor s«id- thab Mr Somerville knsw th»t the price of bricks was to be r»i**d, and it was ou tk»b account thab he bought tbrm. Ha had actually beught the bricks Im fore it was Mentioned to him at all. Ta« CiiAimuAN said that be told the secretary to t»U Mr Somerville to buy the bricks at; or.cc, as they would go up in price on the Ist of July. Mr J. F. M. Fkasbj* : The architect says he weat for tMa bricks before he heard anything from the secretary. Mr MacGtmeqor : He bought the bricks before he he»rd anything from the secretary. The Chairman : Tkat is not so. Mr MtcGrregor's amendment (published previouslj) nai lout, s.»d Mr P. B. Eraser's motions w«r« carried, Mr M«eGr#gor dissenting. Mr GitXAWii tkeu mov«d the motion of which he had given »otic» — " Th*t in order to conduce to the proper conduct of the hoard's business it is ncceoary that the architect ba held solely responsible to tke beard for all matb«is csnoerning bin own department, aad must rf p»rt upon all such mutters to the beard in writiuy, and th«t for the future tha secretary, in matters out-side the ordinary routine of the office, must regard hiasself and be regarded by the b»ard as merely tha channel of communication betweon tha bsard and the officials under iti control." H« did not intend tail as an attack on the seer»t*ry> ac snnse people sMmed to regard ib. H* »ia*ply wished to see that in f oture th«ir br.sineefl was property and orderly conducted. In tbe past their business bad not been conducted a« it ought to have been. Ia a board thab was con»b*atiy changing, and where tke member* h>d their, own business to attendto, ib must follow thab a ' great deal of resp*nsiblo work would fall on the officials ; bn* he ventured to say distinctly that their officials, for tkwir own sake?, were extremal? f»olisX t* tsbe upon themselves responsibilities that did uot corns wibhin their province. If such a notion as he proposed had been oa record there would have b«en no mnddla over bbc plans and/ no long inquiry such as they had had, and in (the present stats of things they coald not make the architect responsible for all tha buildings u»leas he waa independent of all control except thab of tke board. Mr Skow seconded the motion. Mr J. F. H. Fjbashr moved as an amendment—" That it be an instruction to the secretary that in future all i«»trucfcions given to ths architect should be in writing, aud that a copy of such instructions ahonld be recorded foe reference ; aud, farther, that the architect make a monthly return to the board of all work, done by him sine* the last m«eting of the beard, and tbat the inspector of works supply a similar return te the architect, which the latter shall lay before the board." ,Mc Gallaway'* motion, ke thought, was conceived at a memenfe ■when thera w*s a good deal of heat round bhe table, and ke expected that that gentleman would have very maberially modified his views. However, he had aot d»ne so, but sought to set> up an imjterium. in ini'ftri* — to set up an in4a~ pendent branch ot the department wibhin the department to intensify the evils he de» plored and to complicate matters tenfold. Tfaere must be some official executive h«ad in

We often hear of sensational bets being made, such as a guinea to a gooseberry ; a bible-backed policeman to a pint of she-oak ; a .hundred pounds to a bundle of chips, and co on. The art of betting is to win, and to win yon Must back certainties. Here is a tip ! You back Woods's Grkat Peppermint Cure to beat a cough oc cold every time. You'll always get home; u» JohDuy Ar.metr.ons about Vhafe,

the office. He had not sufficient confidence in

the architect's department to constitute it an .independent; department. Mr Gallaway in■jftended to give the architect 10 times more j power than he had before. 4~ Mr Clabk seconded the amendment. *£■ After a discussion, the amendment was carried by 4 votes fco 3. Ayes : Messrs Clark, J. F. M. Fcaser, and P. B. Fraser. | Noes : Messrs Snow, Gallaway, and Mac3 Gregor. Mr P. B. Faaser gave notice of motion as ; follows :— " Thafc ifc be an instruction to the secretary that in future all instructions given to the other officers of the board bs ia writing,

and that a copy of such instructions should be recorded for reference ; and, further, that all '►officers of the board (other than the clerks) jbeep a diary of their movements or work done, j an abstract of which shall be laid on the board's ,' table every month."