Harbor Board Contract.

Patea Mail, 16 December 1881, Page 3

Harbor Board Contract.

The proposal to build a protecting wall at the inner end of the breakwater has been ranch discussed both in and out of the Harbor Board. The local public have naturally watched the question with lively interest. It is desirable that no partisanship should interfere with a public work, and we are anxious that both sides of the question should be impartially stated.

Some members of the Board disclaim any suggestion that the Boiling-down Company have any connection with the proposed wall to protect their property. Members refuse to recognise any other interest than the public interest. It is true, on the other band, that one of the first reasons urged for doing this work was that if an action were brought for injury to the Boiling-down Coy’s property, the Board might be subject to damages. It seems to us that this is a sensible reason to urge, if airy member thinks such an action might ensue. It is certain also that an action has been hinted at in our presence on behalf of that company ; and we are not surprised that it should be so. It is also certain that tenders have been called and one has been accepted in a manner, and that this was done before the Governor’s order in Council was applied for. That order is now to be applied for. The fair objection to this procedure is that it is irregular and contrary to the Act. We believe no wrong is intended by the irregularity. It is merely a mistake from want of knowledge or skill in conducting public business. It is excused to this extent, that the Minister of Marine, Major Atkinson, had been shown the damage caused to the river bank, and had agreed that protection is necessary. It follows therefore that the Governor will be advised to give the order asked for.

Another unfortunate mistake in this business was the resolution to impose a tonnage rate to raise funds for building this wall—some naturally say for protecting that property—and that the Board should take the strong course of taxing local trade, and thereby handicapping it, for a work which only a few persons considered urgent. The folly of that course is sufficiently admitted. The Board has since found there was no necessity to resort to a rate ; that an overdraft up to £6OO could be obtained without the rate. There was power in reserve to levy a rate, and the Board could have worked on that power, without laying a rate till required. The attempt to force a rate on local trade has raised a feeling against the Board which is the natural result of unwise policy. It is not surprising to see members uncomfortably anxious to explain and defend that. The position is not mended by the irregular manner in which the resolution to accept a tender was carried at Monday’s meeting. One member of the Board, if not more, is desirous to protest against our report as not being in accordance with bis recollection. He believes, but hesitates to declare positively, that the motion carried in committee was put again and carried when the Board had resumed. We hope it was, for the sake of good order; but there is no evidence that it was, and from all we can learn, there appears to have been no motion for adopting what was done in committee. Confusion prevailed, and this is the most likely explanation of the oversight, Still, there is no record that the Board authorised in the only legal manner the acceptance of any tender. We should be failing in our duty if, after discovering that tact, we did not point it out. Against the contract we have nothing to say. Indeed our opinion has been that the protection wall is necessary, and may soon be urgent.

It is proper matter for discussion •whether the Board will be acting prudently in exhausting its available funds on a work which might be left six months without risk. When the overdraft is exhausted, the Board will not

have added a stone to deepen the bar, but only to protect a bank of earth which is part of a public road not yet formed. There is good reason to believe that the breakwater can be continued seaward with the present financial resources, if only they are handled with skill to make the most of limited means. The public would prefer that the question of resuming the breakwater should be discussed fully, with sufficient knowledge, before proceeding to spend the £6OO overdraft on another work of slight importance. It is because that work is being hurried, to secure expenditure on it, that we raise an impartial protest against this policy. We ask only for delay to enable the whole question of what is best for the port to be considered.

This contract is for 500 cubic yards of rubble wall, at 7s 9d a yard, and excavation. Say the wall will cost £250. It will be just long enough to deflect the tide-wash against another part of the public road-line ; and by that time the railway formation will require protection imperatively. There is a prospect that the Government would form a road-way as part of their railway formation round the bluff, and that the Harbor Board would need to spend nothing. It is particularly unwise to commence a wall before the Government have been allowed to work out their own difficulty round that bluff. Present hurry will chuck away money that might be saved to the Board. Is it past all hope to have this expenditure delayed ?