Mr Goodall and the Napier Breakwater.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5024, 4 June 1889, Page 3

Mr Goodall and the Napier Breakwater.

The Napier correspondent of n contemporary writes: —'Iho action of tho Harbour Board in reducing the salary of their Engineer from £IOOO to £SOO a year Las caused considerable surprise and discussion, and the popular opinion expressed is that Mr Qoodall Ims been unfairly treated. Tho position tulfOD by tbe Hoard eeews poraowhut

illogical, for if Mr Goodall’s services are only worth £SOO a year now, such must have been tho case when he received bis appointment, and the Board have been guilty of extravagance in the past. Should the present engineer resign his appointment, which is not at all improbable, there would be great difficulty in securing the services of a competent man for the salary offered, and as tho proper construction of the harbour works is of immense importance to the district the board will find that their action is not endorsed by the public of the province, who prefer to pay a good salary to a first-class engineer rather than risk a failure by tho employment of an incompetent one. The truth of the matter is that the sanguine predictions of the chairman of the board have not been verified, and instead of the breakwater proving to be a productive work the contrary promises to bo tho case. Already it is mooted that some lime next year it will bo necessary to levy a harbour rale, which will come as unpleasant news to tho majority, who laboured under tbo impression that no rate would ever bo required to meet interest or sinking fund. The public have a right lo knowhow the money hnsbeen spent, and also why so many unaccountable delays have arisen in the prosecution cf the work. Some five years ago when the province decided in favour of a breakwater, it was declared that within five years wo should have the large steamers lying alongside our wharves. Ucarly four years and a half have elapsed, and it is now estimated that it will bo fully another five years before these predictions are verified. Who is to blame for thus misleading the public ? and has tho present work exceeded tho estimated cost ? are now the two questions that are agitating the community. ‘