The Sun.
London, England, 1856-01-15 00:00:00

SALARIES AND OFFICERS COMMITTEE.

The Committee reported that the salary of the Engi-
neer-in-chief should be 1,1001. a year, including travel-
ling and incidental expenses, and that of the accountant
450/. per annum, including travelling and incidental
expenses.

Mr. CARTMELL moved the reception and adoption,of
the report.

Mr. Hows seoonded the motion.

Mr. D'IFFANGER asked Mr. Cartaiell, one of the corn-
raittee, if he thought 1,0001. a-year sufficient for the
engineer?

Mr.CMITMELL said he should have been better pleased
had the committee taken a more liberal view of the value
of an engineer's services. The committee, however,
gave the matter great consideration, and had come to
the determination to recommend the above sure.
Mr. IYITFANGER moved that the salary be 1,0001. a
year, with 2001. a-year for travelling expenses. He had
no wish to be extravagant, but only to obtain the ser-
vices of a gentleman they could depend on, and the
way to get that was to pay him well. The City engineer
had 1,2001. a-year for surveying about one square mile,
whereas their engineer would have to survey 100 square
miles for a less sum. He thought it was falee economy
to be niggardly in the salaries of the chief officers.
Mr. SNOW seconded the amendment.

Mr. NICHOLAY, as a member of the committee, said the
committee, consisting of fifteen members of the board,
unanimously adopted the report. He did not think
adding 2001. a year to the salary would be sufficient to
induce better men to come forward and offer themselves
for the office than if they adopted the report.
Mr. BURSLEH should support the amendment. He
was an advocate for paying men well for their services,
and then they would have their work done well.
Mr. OFFOR reminded the board that the engineer for
the City had other works to attend to besides the sewer-
age. In committee Mr. Cartraell suggested 1,2001,
a-year, and another gentleman 8001. for tke salary, but
the committee differed from them, and adopted a
medium course, which he thought a wise one.

Mr. DALTON reminded the board that the old com-
mission paid 8081. a year to their engiaeer, and had as
well two consulting engineers, to whom for one report
they had paid 1,0001. He thought I,OOQ/. a year, in-
cluding travelling expenses, inadequate for the services
of such an engineer as the board required.
Mr. Deputy HAnnisoN said it was true the City en•
gineer had new 1,2001. a year. He had been in the
service of the City for 11 years, and, appreciating his
services, the commissioners, two years ago, advanced
his salary from 8001. to 1,2001. per annum. The City
engineer's duties were different from that of the engiceer
to this board. He acted as architect and adviser to the
City Commission, on questions of improvement to be
carried out by them, but the Metropolitan Board were
about to elect a distinct officer as their architect. He
thought it was policy to commence with the sum named
in the report. It could be increased if necessary st a
future time.

Mr. CARTMELL said it was out of respect to the com-
mittee that he gave way to them, that 1,2001. a-year
should be the salary of the engineer.
The CHAIRMAN put the motion, when seven members
only voted for the amendment, and it was consequently
lost ; and that that part of the report relative to the
engineer be received and adopted was carried.
Mr. CARTHELL then moved that portion of the report
which recommended that the accountant's salary be
4501. per annum.

Mr. lows econded the motion. The duties had
formerly been done by the accountant of the late board
at a less su►n and on a rising scale. The committee,
in naming 4501., 'bad placed the accountant rather above
the RUM he had been in the habit of receiving.
Mr. IRVING suggested that the accountant he paid
6001. per annum, but as no member seconded him the
original motion was carried.