TIMARU HARBOR BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2256, 19 September 1891, Page 4

TIMARU HARBOR BOARD.

The following is a continuation of our ' j. report; of the Timaru Harbor Board last Wednesday :• — ' ■; ■ j ~.Mr Evans moved, the rejection of the is Standing Committees report, because, he said, they were trying to burk inquiry, i He inveighed against the chairman for i; the speech he made at the last meeting i: regarding the shingle, and: held that six out of every eight ratepayers were opposed to the removal. They were dissatisfied v with wasting money on it. He held that it was all due to the chairman and Captain: Sutter. He then proceeded at consider-; able length to ; challenge the manner in which the north mole contract had been • carried out. He asserted that the contractors had been allowed to deposit much smaller: stones than those specified; He ..had asked Captain Sutter to.bring the 1 matter of deviation from the specification before the board, but he did not no so. The specification also required the discharge of dynamite to cause settlement of the stones, and no dynamite had been used. There was also a provision for the suspension of the work for six months, and he, as a tenderer, understood-the work would be suspended, but it was.not.. He held that the specifications had not been carried out nor attempted to be carried out. : The f measurements were not what ••< they ought to have been, and he calculated there was a shortage of between 20,000 .and 30,000 yards in the ; whole work. He sent a letter to the, board .protesting against the acceptance of Jones and Palliser's tender, because then* price was Is per yard higher than his on the estimate • of quantities. Mr Marchant, the engineer, was called on to explain, and he, replied that the north wall contained from 5 to 1 7 per cent more stone than was required by the specifications. The daily deliveries were tallied, and the mole was longer and wider at the bottom, and higher, than iyaa required by the contract. ,With the ex-,, ception of 200 loads in the centre the mole was constructed of stones of the largest size, and the requirements of the contract,. over! As to the omission, of dyjiamilie the contractor did not attempt" to f ßpare stones, and there no necessity for it. Mr Evans was a disappointed tenderer, and that was, troubling him. Mir Evans' tender was I £33,4:18 ,'2s 9d, and Messrs Joneß and Palliser's £24,437 and the latter got it. If he (the engineer) .had the confidence of the board he asked c their protection from.', such charges as those of Mr Evans, if he had not the sooner their relations ceased the better. Mr Hill seconded Mr Evans' resolution. Mr .Manchester moved and Mr. Talbot seconded as an amendment- 1 -" That the report of the standing,,, committee , be. adopted," and after; some further discussion the amendment was carried, only Messrs Evans; Hill, and Stumbles voting against it. Mr Talbot. moved, and Mr Morris Beconded—" That the statements made by Mr Evans that the «ontractors for the north mole did not (Jarry out the work faithfully, and thereby implying that the engineer passed the woik improperly, do -not appear to be substantiated by Mr Evans; that the board are of opinion that the work j, was '\ most faithfully. executed, and that the engineer has carried out his duties with ability and to the board's satisfaction." The mover ; hoped Mr Evans, having heard the engineer's explanation, would admit that he had made,a mistake. ;; Mr: JSvans said it did not alter his opinion. The motion was carried by six to one, Mr Evans noting against it, and Messrs Stumbles anil Hill declining tp vote. Mr Evans moved that all contracts entered into and all works; now in operation in connection * with shifting the shingle be suspended for six months, and spoke in opposition to experiments being tried and money thus wasited.| The question was debated at considerable length, buithe motion was, lost. Accounts to the amount of £633 13s 7d were passed for payment and the meeting; adjourned.