THE HARBOUR QUESTION.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 1663, 17 January 1895, Page 3

THE HARBOUR QUESTION.

_ * A meeting of ratepayers convened bj the Geraidine Farmers' OlubV was hel( m the Volunteer Hall atfJeraldine oi Tuesday, to consider the present positioi of the Timaru harbour. Mr M. C. Orbell president of the club, occupied the chair and there were on the platform, speciallj invited to the meeting, Messrs Acton Talbot, Flatman; M.H.R., Marchant and Major Moore, hon. sec There were about 60 persons present. Letters of apology were read from several persons who had been invited. Mr D. Stuart, chairman of theHarboui Board, expressed regret at his inability to be present, and his recognition of the valuable services of Mr Flatman m the passing of the Reclamation Act, which for ever safeguards the easy landward removal of the shingle.; Their interests were well conserved m the hands of Mr Flatman, who would be both able and willing, he was sure, to give the meeting all the information they sought. Mr Teschemaker congratulated the club upon bringing the subject forward, and hoped the result of the meeting would tend to the election of a better board than at present exists. Mr Jacob Hill, after his apology, wrote 1 at some length, suggesting that as a means* of dealing with the shingle the blocks on the parapet should not be carried any further out, and the sea should be allowed to wash the shingle over the breakwater under the wharf, either into binsprepared,or to be allowed to spread out on the bottom, whence it could be lifted by the pump dredge. .If this were done, the crest of the bank, which governs the position of the toe, would not advance a yard further than the protective blocks. The sea would thus wash the whole of the travelling shingle into the harbour within reach of the pump, and save the expense of lifting it over by the Priestman crane. As to the extension of 600 ft from the outer end, he thought it would be folly to commit the ratepayers to a loan of £50,000 for that purpose, as it would block for all time any enlargement of the harbour that may be required m future, and another objection was the danger of silting m the entrance which would take place under the shelter of the extension. This must come m time as it is, when the accumulation m the Bay reaches out to the entrance; and the dredge is unable to cope with the material. Mr J. B. Acland would not attempt to give any opinion as to which was the best method of meeting the shingle nuisance, but he was convinced that it is absolutely necessary that there should be a permanent resident engineer who understands the question and is always ready to cany out any necessary safeguards. Mr O. G. Tripp wrote that he would not vote for any candidate opposed to employing and being guided Dy a permanent engineer. They all had their ideas but they should give way to professional advice. His own opinion was strongly m favour of an extension at the end, even at the cost of a loan of £60,000. Money spent m this way would last their time, whereas shingle shifting would be endless work and they would have nothing to show for it.while taking away the very thing that protects the harbour,and probably they would not be able to cope with the shingle by removal and it would after all overtake them and destroy the harbour. Borrowing and extension was the only remedy. Mr Flatman verbally apologised for Messrs Pringle, Stumbles, and Sullivan. The chairman welcomed the visitors, and then opened the discussion. They had, he said, arrived at a very important period m the history of the liarbour, a critical point, and he bespoke temperate discussion of the question, and a fair hearing fos all speakers. The ratepayers did not take enough interest m the harbour, and he doubted whether many of them understood the position. Under these circumstances no apology was needed for convening this meeting. He would say nothing of extension or shingle shifting, but he recognised that the harbour was m danger, and that something should be done. The shingle was now within a short distance of the bend, and m a year or two, or even sooner, would be up to the bend and roundit. Once round it would probably block up the harbour m a very short time. At New Plymouth the sand took some years to reach the bend m the work, but was only four months m going from the bend to the entrance, and there was no reason why the same thing should not happen at Timaru. They might depend upon it that if anything happened to one of the steamers at the whai-f or m the harbour, the port would be damned for the term of their natural lives. There was a work costing £300,000 on which they had to pay £10,000 a year interest, of which £5000 a year was collected straight from the pockets of the ratepayers, and he ventured to say that unless a different system was adopted further direct calls would be made to keep open the harbour, — for kept open it must be at any .cost. Mr Orbell then spoke of the unequal representation of town and country on the Harbour Board, Timaru having three out of eleven members, while the rateable value of Timaru is only £700,000 out of about seven millions m the district. This was a question some of the speakers might take up. Another question worth discussing was the rate of interest on the harbour loans. In these days of conversions, he believed the loans should be converted into 4 per cents, or even 3i per cents. Dunedin had obtained a conversion Act, and it was likely to be successful, and there waß no reason why the Timaru and other harbour loans should not be treated m the same way. It would be necessary to have the assistance of the Government, and he saw no i reason why that assistance should not be | given. If they could save ,l per cent, il would be £2000 a year, enough to shift the shingle eternally. In concluding Mr Orbell proposed that each speaker be limited to a quarter of an hour, and thie was agreed to by the meeting. A pause then occurred, no one appearing desirous to speak first, and finally Mr Marchant was called for. Mr Marchant explained that he wag g resent by invitation of the Farmers lub, to place the facts of the case, as he knew them, before the meeting ; and he would strictly avoid any controversy, He explained the origin of the shingle, m the great rivers and the shingle cliffs, the prevailing south-easterly seas causing a general drift northwards. He enumerated the principal early reportE that had been made on the subject, — from Mr Balfour's inlß6s,MrCarruthers m 1871, Kir John Coode's m 1875, all oi these insisting on the magnitude of the drift, on account of which Sir John Coode proposed an island harbour tc avoid the difficulty it presented. Undeterred by these reports, however, the harbour board of the time obtained a commission to take local evidence, and the result was a leport that, thougli there was a certain amount of drift, nc fear of it need be felt, the shingle question might safely be left to a distanl future. On these lines the work was commenced under Mr Goodall, m 1878, and was carried out under his control until Februaiy 1886, when he (Mr Marchant; tookcharge. So much shingle was used ir the construction of«,the work, and foi other purposes, that for some time th«

ir accumulation made no advance, and m te September and October 1886 the sea I- broke into the blockyard at the root of ss the breakwater. This date should be j, particularly borne m mind. As soon as ,o the draft on the shingle ceased, the bank is commenced to grow rapidly seaward, h until now, 8£ years later, it had reached .c between 800 and 900 feet out, averaging n 125 feet a year. It was hopeless to ' y is and keep the shingle m check by buildl- ing more breakwater ; at that rate of c advance it would cost £9000 a year to do c so. At this moment the toe or bottom h of the slope of shingle was just at the bend of the breakwater. It only waits for heavy floods and southerly storms to make a very considerable advance, and probably sweep round the end, obstruct- > ing the entrance by forming a shoal there. This is certain to occur, and he derided y the idea that there exist any currents to i prevent it. Small shoals had been formed n on three separate occasions already. a The new dredge could remove any such . shoals, but as she could only work there ', m fine weather, the entrance- might be 7 obstructed long enough to 'damage the , character of the harbour to an extent , which could not be remedied by any i amount of future care. The annual drift is from 50,000 to 60,000 cubic yards, and - this amount must be removed to preserve the liarbour from destruction. r However much they disliked shingle } fflffl yam fc hope that by any sort of } barrier, cattfh, or check7Tn^y"cdulcT not I wcJjSi'jjliif.e.teJ'nal shingif shifting." "The 1 j£S&k-^pe£k_a4y^^ \ this opinion. In • considering what sTTblJlcnSe'lfefie^they I had these factu to consider. They had a ', 'costly tug on which the Board lost £100 on every vessel towed, a small dredge '■ which was not equal to all the work re- , quired of it, the danger from the shingle, ; and, a later danger from the shoaling of 1 Caroline Bay, which at some future time would affect the depth of the entrance '■ during calm weather. It was useless to build any more breakwater with the > funds at command. The only apparent solution was to obtain a machine capable - of coping with all dangers that threatened ' the harbour, and also capable of doing the work of a tug on the few occasions when a tug is required, to save keeping ; a special and very expensive vessel for the purpose. Properly treated the tugdredge would do all this. A danger point was fixed beyond which the shingle should not be allowed to go, and this was passed by the shingle just a year ago, ' but as the dredge had not then arrived no work could nave been done at it. ■ Since her arrival 7or 8 months ago she had been ready to prevent the further advance of shingle, if the preparatory works on shore had been ready. Against the proposals to shift the shingle it had been urged, that the shingle is a great ' protection to the breakwater, that the reclaimed land is valuable, and that it ■ costs a lot of money to shift the shingle. • The answers were, that the breakwater does not need additional protection, that the land which could now be reclaimed is worth very little indeed, and that as the works cost £300,000 and the district is almost entirely dependent upon them, their first thought should be at all costs to preserve^ the harbour. The good character and existence of the harbour could only be preserved by preventing the shingle from encroaching too far, and tl: is could only be done by bodily removing the amount which drifts past the danger point, wherever that may be fixed. No extension of the breakwater within practicable limits could solve the question, therefore no extension is worth building for the purpose of retaining shingle, unless it is of value m improving the harbour. He would not enter into any proposals for the future, as he considered he had at present nothing to do with them. Mr Marchant was applauded on resuming his seat. Mr Flatman produced a oundle of reports, original and printed, sent him by .he chairman of the Board, with a request that the chairman should read them - reports of the Commissions on the extensions, Mr Parr's reply, and Mr Barr's report on the tug dredge.— The chairman seemed horrified at the idea of reading so much matter, but Mr Flatman thought it only fair to the absent chairman that he should be given "a fair show." The whole of the reports were not to be read, only portions underlined. — Mr Pearpoint objected to such portions being read ; they might have been underlined to suit a purpose. — Mr Acton ironically said he also had a bundle of reports with him , and he would ask the chairman to read them too. This sally caused great laughter. After a desultory discussion about reading the reports or extracts a motion by Mr Dennistoun was carried, that no extracts be read, but whole reports if any. Mr Sherratt moved and it was carried that no report be read until the addresses were completed, except by a speaker during his 15 minute address. Mr Flatman was next called for. He said he agreed with the chairman about conversion of the loans, and could state that the much despised Government have a Bill on the stocks to effect these conversions and after next session the board might be able to get their loans down to 4 per cent. He could not quite see what the meeting was called for. There seemed to be a grievance somewhere ; they seemed to be at crossed swords somehow — (no, no,)— he thought they ought to discuss the thing amicably and impartially. Mr Flatman then referred to some incidents of the last ' harbour election. In January 1892 he I asked the old board to give the ratepayers a chance of saying whether the new dredge should be purchased or not, i or whether they should extend the works ■ or not. He pressed for three months ' delay, but his motion was defeated and ' the purchase of the boat decided on. • The then majority used more arbitrary ( measures than lie had ever seen before or ■ since. They swept the pool of everything, [ insurance funds, wharf renewal fund, i everything, and suspended by-laws with- . out notice to sweep m the money to send ! for the boat, irrespective of what others i might say. He asked that the ratepayers i should be consulted, and he considered f he. had done his duty by his constituents I m that matter. It was said that now i they had the boat she would do all that l was needed. He was pleased to hear J that. She had cost a lot of money and 7 ought to be good, but that had yet to be 3 proved. Up to the present she had cost . £17,044, and for eight months' work (m - eluding £320 for insurance) £2359 more. > It was said that the board had done i nothing. They could do nothing, not b having any money left them to do anyb thing with. The chairman spoke of I ruining the harbour if anything hap- ? pened to one of the steamers. The board i had tried to obviate thie danger by allowing the shingle to bank up as far as - it was safe to do so, and if the boat was T so good she could pick up the shingle at the mouth if necessary. He had 3 never said a word for an extension from ' the curve : his idea was for one from the » end, and he mentioned it some years ago 3 to Mr Marchant. who agreed with him. He maintained that with no funds left and a falling revenue the board had done all that was necessary to protect the rate- . payers, and it was the board's intention > to protect them m the future as m the 3 past. It was said that the boat could I fill herself with shingle, but it was not 1 m a straightforward manner. It was to f cost another £1600 to run a pipe over the 3 breakwater ; and then came the diffii culty of connecting it. Mr Flatman > quoted from Messrs Wilson and Bell's . report on the cost of connections and 3 working, and remarked that their annual i estimate of working cost had been cxi ceeded m eight months, without any ! shingle shifting at all. He next quoted j from a report of October 1889, to show . that Mr Marchant was then m favour of t a scheme of removal by land and tipping . the shingle into Caroline Bay, at an i estimated eoßt of about £1000 a year. If ] that could be done, why was not the ) shingle tackled m that way ? The report i said that this was the only scheme that r would give good results. (Mr Marchant : 3 That was not my scheme. It was Captain

Sutter's.)— Mr Flatman : You did not say so. Why did you give your opinion m favour of it : that it was the only way that would be satisfactory ?— (Mr Marchant : That has been completely explained.)Mr Flatman said he did not know how the Board came to be authorised to spend £17,000. He read Mr Marchant's proposals of January 1892, for three kinds of vessel to choose from. One of them to do dredging and shingle shifting was to cost £8000, so it seemed the towing part cost £9000, and they had a tug costing £12,000, though they .could not get half that for her. He made some further criticisms on the plant, and m reply to a remark from the hall, that this was not the purpose of the meeting, he said a challenge had been thrown out that the Board had frittered away money m the past, and he was replying to that. In conclusion Mr Flatman announced that lie did not intend to seek re-election, as it would not be fair for him to hold a seat when he had to be so long away from the district. He thanked the rateEayers for the support they had given im, and assured them that he had always thought of their interests, following no clique, no majority or minority. He trusted the harbour was still m a safe position, and hoped the new boat would do all that she waa said to be capable of, and more. Mr .Talbot was nest called upon. He was pleased to bs present to talk over this important matter, and it was most important that the ratepayers should hear what could be said about \L He began by pointing out the great importance of the harbour to the district. If it were lost the agricultural industry would suffer a disaster to which the depression would be as nothing. It was said that they could do without it ; that they could make terms with the railway. That was a delusion. The railway would make what charges it pleased, and would try to make as much money out of the traffic as it could. Even on the importation of coal alone, the difference between the harbour charge and the old surf-boat system would almost pay for shifting the shingle. As to what was to be done, the extension from the bend was dead as Julius Csesar. They now had a new idea from Mr Hill, to let the shingle be" swept over the breakwater into the harbour — the most extraordinary thing ever heard of. It was to him utterly incredible that a man holding his position should make such a statement as that the shingle could be washed over and be taken away. That the shingle would go round there could be no doubt whatever, unless something was done to stop it, and form a bank across the mouth. The dredging machinery could cope with it there even, if it came regularly, but it did not. The Bhingle is stationary for months, and then comes on m thousands of tons, and m weather when the dredge could not work at it at all. In support of the opinion that the shingle would form a bank across the entrance Mr Talbot quoted from a report by- Mr O'Connor, of 1881. Mr Shiers had written him that he calculated the bank would be formed across m less than seven years, to stop large vessels, some further time being allowed for small vessels. But there was no grace to be allowed for small vessels. When the bar was formed it would be complete. He then referred to Mr Thew's idea that two miles out there existed a current which would carry the shingle on. In the first place they could not carry out the work to reach so far, and m the* second no such current exists. None of the engineers or other experts who had studied the harbour had ever met with it. It would have to flow over 10 miles an hour to shift shingle, as they could see m their rivers. The experts^all said that if the shingle goes round" it will block the harbour. He quoted records of. the advance of theßhingle to show that it very soon will go round if not prevented. It would soon be at the curve, and the curve and the rest of the breakwater would not long retard it. Extension was dead. At the last election they were assured by candidates that the time was still a long way off when anything need be done and ratepayers were influenced by those statements. And yet they immediately set to work to get an extension. The foreman was asked to prepare a plan and estimate for 300 ft extension, but neither he nor anyone else was asked whether it would be of any use. It was to retard to shingle and allow it to advance so that it could be removed beyond the wharf, and it was to cost only £5000. A commision was got and they said it must be 500 ft long and cost £20,000 to do what was wanted. Then the Board changed their tactics ; they did not want the extension to retain the shingle but for shelter. The commission came again, took nautical evidence, heard the members of the Board, and then decided that the proposed extension would be useless for shelter, it must go out lOOOfeet before it would begin to give shelter to the entrance. Now the question was shifted to extension from the end. But 600 ft put on there would not save shingle shifting. If then they were not to shift the shingle what were they to do ? He hoped the ratepayers would return men who would not rely upon their own opinions but upon professional advice. The professional advice had been all on one side. The present Board had not dared to ask for professional advice at all. He was glad to say that Mr Flatman had supported his attempt to get advice ; such an important work should not be left without it. The present Board claimed to have saved three or four years' dredging. There had been no loss of time ; the former Board ordered the boat as soon as they could ; they decided that the shingle should not be allowed to go within 100 feet of the bend, and it was there when the boat came out. How could they claim to have saved, so much! 1 (Applause.) Mr Flatman wished to explain that the " shelter" the second Commission was asked to approve an extension for, was not shelter for the entrance but for the wharf. Mr Acton was next called upon. He began by regretting that Mr Flatman meant to retire from the Board as he had been a useful and straightforward member. He then proceeded to show that Mr Flatman had not been entirely opposed to the shifting proposals. In April 1890 Mr Flatman moved a resolution that m view of the danger £10,000 should be set aside to be eventual ly used m dealing with the shingle,and that was carried. In January 1892 the question came up what funds should be used m payment, for the dredge, and Mr Flatman recommended that present payments should be made by that Board, and future payments be left to the next Board. Mr Flatman had taken the chairman to task for saying the Board had been wasting money ; he meant that they had been wasting time. If the harbour was closed, the bondholders would demand their £10,000 a year, for no harbour at all. Mr Flatman had read alternative plans for a dredge. Mr Marehant recommended the most expensive one as the best investment for the future. Smaller ones had reference to dredging and shingle work only, while the larger one contemplated towing also. As to the land carriage of shingle," and Mr Marchant's report thereon, that waa due to Captain Sutter. The Board requested Mr Marchant to give him all the assistance he could ; and the report was only intended to assist Captain Sutter to place his opinion before the Board. On this being done Captain Sutter abandoned the idea himself, admitting that it was too expensive. Mr O'Connor took a great deal of trouble m trying to devise an economical means of land carriage and he gave it up. Mr Talbot had replied to Mr Flatman's statement that the Board had saved £2000 a year for two years. The dredge had only been m working order seven months. — (Mr Flatman : You wonld have worked as m the old experiment — Mr Talbot: Not at all.)— Something had been said about the contract price. He signed the contract himself, and it was only for £15,500. If the present Board had run the cost into £17,000 he did not know how

they had done it. — (Mr Flatman : Mr Darling altered all the dimensions.)— No, not after the contract was signed. As to the conversion schemes they could not convert the harbour loans to reduce the cost unless the whole colony became responsible, and he did not believe the Government would be permitted to take over all the harbours, such as Oamaru and New Plymouth, and it must be all or none. With regard to the capabilities of the dredge, the ' trouble was caused largely by omissions m carrying out the contract. Certain necessary perforated plates, for instance, were omitted. They were specially provided for, they were not sent, and they had to be cobbled up afterwards. The boat was roughly sketched by Mr Marchant, who consulted the harbourmaster, then Mr Hendry, then Captain Cameron, and' 1 again MiDarling, constructor to the Union Company, and the design further improved by MessrsJLobnitZjbest dredgebuilders m the world. She had not' done all that was expected of her, because the man who designed her was not allowed to go near her. That was not fair to either the man or the boat. They had a very satisfactory report about her from Dunedin, and Mr Hendry told him that if. she were put over her work she could fill herself m 30 minutes. That might be a little exaggeration, but Mr Hendry had nothing but good to say of her. Bigferring to the reclamation, Mr Acton. that it was df'Kny "value^*' \V was riot"' worth "two "pence a fffiSrter-aere. " He "attdeda few words on tne"n£echarifcal removal of shingle, quoting, a. remark to him by Mr O'Connor that if they could ; build an enormous barrier something like Banks Peninsula, so large that all the shingle would be ground up before it could get round, then they should go on extending it, and adding to the debt of the district, and even then they would be troubled by the sand. Mr O'Connor m a recent letter to him likened the choice they had to those between different methods of committing suicide, — they should choose the least dangerous way. Mr Flatman complained that if Mr Acton knew that the report on land carriage was only to help Captain Sutter's whim, he ought to have told the board so. Mr Acton objected to the word '.'■;. whim." Captain Sutter was not a man of "whims." - Mr Wreathall spoke next. He said there were>sc i many conflicting opinions from, engineers that the ratepayers who have to pay the piper were puzzled what to do. Wo doubt extension . from • the end was dead now, as there had been two refusals to sanction it, and he thought himself it would be absurd to duplicate the work m that way. He did not know whether they must eternally shift the shingle, if so it was all due to the late Board,who m the face of protests and petitions refused to suspend their action pending the decision of the ratepayers. Seven members of the Board were utterly unjustified m spending so much money, m defiance of the strenuous opposition of the ratepayers. Had they not done that, the same members might have all been returned again. Now they had £20,000 m one vessel and other vessels which would have done the same work lying idle. That money would have put on a 300 ft. extension. He fully beheved m following professional advice, would not go with any layman on the question. There had been an enormous amount of amateur engineering m the past, yet every foot of the works had been sanctioned by competent engineers, and if it was a failure it was a failure for the engineers. If the engineers had been such wretched guides m the past, could they place any dependence on them m future ? It was said it would cost £2500 a year to shift the shingle. If that was spent on a yearly extension, far enough to keep the shingle from going round, they would have something to look at for their money. The other way they would spend £250,000 m 100 years and be just where they were before. Yet they must be guided by the engineers, and if any engineer would say they could have a solid work for the same money, and the same purpose, by all means let them have the solid work. The ratepayers should put m reliable men, not heavenborn engineers who would follow their own fads against the opinion of competent engineers. Whoever were put m should consider themselves the servants of the ratepayers, and should not set themselves up to carry out their own little fads that they could not get professional sanction for. Mr Marchant explained, m reply to Mr Flatman, that his report on land carriage was perfectly clear and above board. He had reported before m favour of sea carriage, and Captain Sutter wanted to know if land carriage would not do, and so leave the Taniwha at her work of dredging. The report referred only to land carriage, and when it said the system proposed was the best, it meant, and evidently meant, the best system of land carriage. There was no comparison made with sea carriage. The present chairman of the Board had misquoted him m making it appear that he said this was the best of all systems, including sea carriage. In reply to Mr Wreathall, he pointed out that the annual cost of the new vessel, so often quoted, must not be taken as the cost of shingle removal, as only a few months work each year would be needed for that. But if they were to extend the work to keep ahead of the shingle, 125 feet a year at £71 per foot, (the price of the last contract) they would have to spend £9000 a year, a sum quite out of the question. They might put on an extension to slfglw "tTie ISHtranceratid sul§Ee^ |uSprQfteZr<3t^a:3Wngle3tuesti6n ; the shingle would, be out tKerely tßgthrar 'th'ev^ad got out witning^woritr^tn reply R> a furtner remark ot MrWreatl iall, Mr Marchant explained that the random blocks were put out at the first kant because the breakwater was m places being underscoured and endangered. The blocks had nothing to do with the advance of the shingle ; it had gone out 90 feet before a single block was put down. Mr Flatman wished to say that he had not read the report on land carriage m the same way that Mr Marchant now read it. He had understood it differently. It was not brought up for the purpose of " cornering" Mr Marchant. He was sorry the other reports were not read, m justice to the other members. Mr Dennistoun thanked the speakers for the interesting discussion they had heard, and especially Mr Marchant for his report. He also expressed regret that Mr Flatman thought of retiring from the Board, as he had been a very useful member. They should close with some practical resolutions, and he would move — " That this meeting is of opinion that m all matters affecting the safety of the harbour, either with regard to the accumulation of shingle or the lessening the range along the wharf, the Board should at all times>be guided by the best engineering advice that they are able to obtain." Mr Moore seconded this, and said it was absolutely impossible m a case of this kind for any man to predict what would happen m the future, but if they could depend upon any opinion at all, it must D£ that of a professional man, Ijjfhb had studied the thing. He would rather trust the opinion of a competent engineer than all the members of the Harbour Board, or all the ratepayers m the district. If they did that, and mistakes were made, they should be lenient m their judgments, as the Board had got the best advice they could, and no one was infallible. The motion was carried by 16 for and none against. Mr Wreathall moved and Mr Slierratt seconded a hearty vote of thanks to Mr Flatman for his past services on the Board. — Carried by acclamation. Mr A. White moved :—" That m the opinion of this meeting it is desirable that an expert be employed without delay to test the full capabilities of the tug dredge." Mr Wreathall seconded this with the addition :— " And that Mr

Marchant should be requested to be present at the trial."— Carried by a good show of hands. Mr Wilson-Smith, after a few remarks on the subject, moved: — " That the Harbour Board be requested to promote a Bill during next session of Parliament to provide for the representation of the ratepayers m proportion to the rateable values of the different districts."— Seconded by Mr Thew and earned Mr Pearpoint moved, and Mr White seconded : — " That this meeting desires to recommend to all ratepayers that no support be given to candidates at the coming election who will not carry into effect the previous resolutions." There was some confusion about the voting on this motion, but itwas declared carried by 12 to 6. Mr Dennistoun moved that Mr Flatman and Mr Maslin be asked to take charge of the Harbour Board Representation Bill, and this was agreed to. Mr Flatman moved a vote of thanks to MrOrbell for presiding, and the meeting terminated a few minutes before 11 o'clock. j