The Harbor Board Loan.

Thames Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 8323, 14 April 1896, Page 2

The Harbor Board Loan.

At the meeting of the Harbor Board to-day Mr Scott moved in the direction of | obtaining a loan of £1000 to extend the wharf 100 feet temporarily. He moved that the Loan Committee should consult the bankers with this object in view. Mr Deeble said £1000 was too small an amount, and suggested £4000. Mr Scott refused to raise the figure, remarking that the Board had tried to raise a loan of £15,000 and eouid not manage it. Messrs Gillespie and ,McDonnell at once pretested that the Board had never tried.

Mr GiUespie said that he had moved at the last meeting to hare public tenders called for a loan of £15,000,. but there was no seconder. He thought that this motion should be put into effect, or that the proposal shou'd be abandoned altogether. To borrow £1000 was simply " chucking it away." Mr Scott thought that they would also be " chucking away" the £15,000. Mr Gillespifr remarked that £10,000 was already spent. Mr Scott then said that his remark would apply to the additional £5000 which it was proposed to borrow. Mr Gil'espie said that to make a good job of the work, he would move: " That tenders be called for a loan of: £15,000, at 4| per cent, interest and 1 per cent, sinking fund, with a currency of 21 years." At this stage there was no seconder either to the motion or the amendment.

Mr McDjnnell expressed himself as favorable to allowing the matter to stand in abeyance for a few months. Before long the County, Borough, and Harbor Board miyht be me-ged together. Messrs Deeble and Gillespie stated that Harbor Boards were excluded under the contemplated legislation, Mr McDonnell then seconded Mr Gillespie's amendment. The Chairman stated that everything had been done in the effort to raise the loan. They had acted on information from the member for the district, who had advised them to apply to the Government for consolidation and a new loan. Mr Gillespie said it was not denied that steps had been taken, but nothing had been arrived at, The Chairman and Mr Scott expressed the opinion that Mr Gillespie was acting too hastily in proceeding with his motion. Ihey thought the matter should be left for a fully attended meeting. Mr Gillespie failed to see that he was acting with too great haste The matter had now been on the board for six months without anything being arrived at. His original motion having lapsed for want of a seconder, Mr Scott moved as an amendment, and Mr McDonnell seconded: " That the matter be adjourned to a full meeting of the Board." This was carried, Mr Gillespie being the »nly dissentient.