Cr Chamberlain said that ho opposed the motion on the ground that the machinery was not required, It was an expensive investment anil would cost more to construct roads than it did nt the present time, Ho had received ligures regarding the working o( the machinery at Motueka, the person supplying which was mi undoubted authority as well as an experienced individual. A stone crusher wits purchased and an engine hired to work it, the latter costing £l 2s a day, inclusive of fuel, oil, etc, It necessitated the employment of thir teen men, tour horses and four drays, and sixty yards ot metal per day was averaged, costing 'ls per yard for crushing, There was nothing al lowed in that estimate for depreciation of plant, etc., but was the actual working expenses, The jaws of the crusher, which were ridged, were only capable of crushing four hundred yards of metal, when new ones were required, costing £'l2 each. Cr Chamberlain maintained that thoy had plenty of good metal in the river beds which could be carted on to the streets and crushed by manual labour far cheaper than (lie work could be done by machinery. (Cr Ucna".: A question ?) Continuing, Cr Chamberlain said the machinery was not necessary where there was plenty of gravel r-'kc in Mnstcrton. Before the scheme was completed the machinery would cost £■2,000. There was live per cent, interest on the amount, £100; wear and tear and depreciation of plant, £100; ami also £25 or £lO annually for repairs. Cr Ilenall had made misleading statements, It was quite ridiculous to make an asser tion that the metal could be placed on the roads nt 2s Gd per yard, It was also stated that £3 10s per chain could bo saved on eight miles of road construction while the roads did not cost M 10s to make.
