TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5463, 15 January 1896, Page 4

TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

The monthly meeting of the Timaru Harbour Board was held yesterday, all the members being present. Complaint having been made at the wharfage rate for merchandise (Is 6d per ton) being charged on stone ballast landed, it was resolved to. reduce, the .charge to 6d per ton. f The Chairman^stated that the harbour-master : had complained about the wantf of proper means for dealing with explosives carried by vessels passing through .the port. Inquiry had been made at the port of Oamaru, but the practice there was unsuited to Timaru. Further inquiry was directed to be made. TheforemanreportedthattheTimaru had taken to sea last year 139,250 tons of. spoil, while the smaller Taniwha discharged under 200,000 tons in six and a half years. The Standing Committee recommended that the tug-dredge should be reinsured as before,'for ' £8000, at a cost of .£320 a year, and that a similar sum should be set aside by the Board td an insurance and renewal fund. The tender of P. Sinclair for supplying and -fitting cutter and channel to the dredge-pipe, for .£33 10s,, was accepted. At the conclusion of the ordinary business the Board took into' consideration Mr Napier Bell's report on the shingle question, confirming Mr J. P. Maxwell's recommendations on the matter. .The Chairman and Mr Bullock expressed dissatisfaction with the report, on the ground that it was to an important extent based on errors of fact. Other members, though holding different views as to what Bhould be done, were in favour of adopting one of the alternatives given by'Mr Bell. A minority were in favour of accepting another alternative and starting to shift shingle from the south side; while two were in favour of obtaining an extension of the works. The result of the was that other business was proceeded with, no motion being proposed on the report. . Mr Manchester's notice of motion to appoint a resident engineer occasioned considerable discussion, and finally it was carried by six votes to five. It was understood that the Board will not demand thewhole of the engineer's time. . - .