BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 16, 20 June 1885, Page 3

BOROUGH COUNCIL.

At the above meeting on Tuesday there were present his Worship the Mayor, and Councillors Townley, Lewis, Wilson, Joyce, Hepburn, Smith, Stevenson, and Graham. A communication, accompanying a petition for the better management of railways, forwarded by the New Zealand Railway Reform League, was read askins the Council and Mayor to sign and circulate it throughout the district.

Cr. Lewis thought that the petition should be signed in accordance with the request. Although we had no railways in the district yet there was no knowing how soon any one present might be in one where railways were. Cr. Townley thought the Council might sign the petition, but did not see why they should send it round the district. The petition was signed accordingly. Committee Report. The Committee appointed to consider the niuht-soil contractors conplaint reported : “ The committee is of opinion that clause 111., paragraph 14, of the new Police Offences Act gives ample power to the Inspector of Nuisances to check any irregular interference by householders to evade the payment of the night-soil contractor.” After a few remarks, the further consideration of the matter was left over until next sitting. Engineers Report. Turanganui Bridge : The anchor and bolts as formerly described having been put into the east abutment, the bridge was pulled back yesterday to nearly its original position. The earth will now be filled in and the anchor and land ties on the western side proceeded with. Aberdeen Road: The drain on this road fronting the recreation reserve has been attended to as ordered at last meeting. Weighbridge House : It was resolved at a late meeting of the Council to give the weighbridge to the Harbor Board. I presume the house will go with the bridge, but I should like precise instructions on this point. Day labor to the amount of .£l3 os. 6d. has been employed. -The-Chairman said the only question was whether the house was to go with the bridge. Cr Joyce thought that the house should be valued and the Harbor Board asked to take it at its valuation. The Council had been quite generous enough in giving the bridge. Cr Stevenson proposed that the house and weighbridge should go together.—Carried. Payments. McDavitt, £9 10s fid.; Shellard, £2 2s. ; Lewis, £1 8. Motion re Engineer. In speaking to the following motion—“ That on the completion of the I’aranganni Bridge, the services of a Bo'-ough Engineer be dispensed with ” —Cr. Joyce said that in bringing forward this motion he had no personal feeling against the engineer, and done it solely in the interests of the ratepayers. He could not see the necessity for any engineer after the bridge was finished. The engineering skill required in this borough was of a very limited nature, and the bridge was the only case where any had been required. He had it on good authority that far larger towns than this —such as the Thames, Wanganui, and Napier—had no engineer, and he did not see why we wanted one. It was also very necessary that expenses should be reduced, as the amount of money in hand was nil. The Borough was in debt by overdraft £1,830, and if they went on at the same rate in a couple of years’ time we should be in a very bad state, and when the special loan became due there would be the heavy burthen of £7,000. The Council had been spending double what they had been receiving during the last year, and if that was to go on the burden would so-ti be very heavy. He could nor see the necessity for an engineer in a level town like Gisborne. There ’ were far greater works done in other places than in Gisborne, by persons without the magic letters of attached to their names, find a good road overseer could do all the work, that was required. The Harbor Board engineer would be here shortly and if required it would be easy to get his services. He himself had no axe to grind and merely brought the question forward as a public matter.

Too much power was given to engineers. The bridge had cost the Borough about £B9O while the county had only paid £250. But the bridge would cost much more yet, and it would all have to come out of the rates. It was most advisable to work the revenue as economical as possible. A defence might be set up that they must have a valuator, but any road overseer could do it as well, if not better than the engineer, and would spend their money to better advantage. Cr. Wilson seconded the motion, and considered that the present state of the Borough funds did not warrant keeping on an Engineer. A long and ominous silence was broken by the Chairman asking whether any Cr. wished to speak on the subject before the motion was put. No one responding the Chairman rose and was about to put the motion when

Cr. Townley said although Cr. Joyce had put the matter in a most temperate way there could be no denying that the motion was meant as a direct censure on the Engineer. The state of the Borough funds was well known, and he did not wish to go into extravagances. If the matter had been let rest until the bridge had been finished and it was found that there was nothing further to do then they could dispense with the Engineer. But there would be much to do, and their position was not so bad as many other boroughs. They had yet roads to level and make. As to the towns which Cr Joyce had mentioned they were old towns whereas this was a new one. As for Napier they had been trying for years to get the levels and after costing £l,OOO they had not got them yet. Neither could he agree with Cr..j Joyce about the valuator. They must have the valuation properly mad®, and the present engineer had done it far better than before. He should vote against the present motion as it stood. Cr. Lewis had little to say in this matter, and would merely go back to his previous statement made at the time when the present engineer was elected. It was absurd to think that a labouring man could value and lay out streets properly. The financial condition of the borough was certainly bad, but they must rais'd another £lO,OOO loan. He should vote against the motion, as he considered that an engineer was very necessary.

Cr. Graham could not see how they would gain anything by the proposed change as they would have to pay a road overseer about £3 10s. a week to do the engineers work. As to there being nothing further to do after the completion of the bridge he was in hopes of there being plenty of work to do, and roads to form. Cr. Joyce said in answer to Cr Townley, that he might say that the motion did not imply a vote of censure on the engineer. The levels for this town had been already taken and any “ laboring men ” as Cr. Townley had called them, could take the whole levels from Read’s Quay to Makaraka with three T levels. In Napier with its hills it took a good man to take the levels, but this town did not. As to the valuation, a working man could do it quite as well, when compared with the last valuation. Mr Booth, before whom the objections came, could best explain about this. Councillor Graham had said that it would cost £3 10s a week for a road overseer, but even if it did they would have a man who could look after the work and see that it was properly done, and that they had their moneys worth. Look at the Aberdeen road contract. It was a most disgraceful affair, and little over half the proper quantity of metal had been put on. He spoke fearlessly and truthfully. If the matter had been looked after it would not have occurred. The gravel was also very inferior, and if the contract had been held over for a short time they could have got much better.

Alter another period being spent in silence, the Chairman again asked whether any other councillor wished to speak on thw subject No response having been made, the motion was put with the following result— For the motion— Crs Joyce, Wilson, & Smith. Against the motion — Crs. Townley, Lewis, Graham, Stevenson, & Hepburn. The Mayor did not record his vote.