CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 9006, 11 October 1892, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

MR. ROCHFORT'S SURVEY OF THE CENTRAL ROUTE. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln 1884 I made what is called a flying survey of a line from Marton to Te Awainutu. The • total length surveyed was 223 miles. At least; 100 miles was through bush without roads or tracks. This was chained, surveyed, and levelled with a spirit level, and pegged every four chains, plans and sections plotted, and the whole completed in three months. This was done that the plans, etc., might be ready when Parliament met. Everv engineer knows that earth and other railway works cannot be accurately estimated without a section being made with pegs every chain, and cross sections, so that my survey and estimate could only be an approximation. To make a detail survey fit to calculate the various work 3 with accuracy would take as many years as I had months at my disposal. The Northern Railway League has given out a circular, which was published in your columns, throwing great blame on me, which was published in your columns, throwing great blame on me, which I regard as highly unfair, and calculated to injure my professional reputation, and which I believe to be actionable.

With regard to the League's statement the Makohine viaduct was much under estimated, I fully acknowledge that; but the Makohine is a considerable valley, and it seemed probable that the route might be diverted up the valley, and rejoin the line in the Hautapu Valley, but time would not allow me to work out details. I believe that a survey party of the Public Works Department was occupied for at least four months on this viaduct alone before determining the best route. If blame is due anywhere it should rest on those who hurried the work through, and the outside pressure brought to bear on them.

I would also correct a mis-statement made in section 8 of the circular, which says that the line from Marton to beyond Huuterville (which means the completed portion) opens up all the valuable land on the Central route. This is not the fact. There is & considerable extent of good limestone country in the neighbourhood of Turangarere. called the inner Patea. There is also a large block of flat good land west of Ruapehu, and a papa country more or less hilly between that and the VVanganui river some 20 miles in width. You may remember when my survey was commenced the bulk of the country through which the Central route passes was closed to Europeans, and it was a point of importance with the Government then in power to get a road or railway through, I met with continual native obstruction, was many times stopped, once a prisoner eight days, and twice fired upon. I may say the last European two years previous to me in the Tuhua country was shot. I claim the honour of opening that country to Europeans, and I have no doubt the Hon. Mr. Bryce, who is aware of all the facts, would verify my assertion. This may appear foreign to the purport of my letter, but it is not so. It is necessary to show the exploratory character of the work I was engaged on there in 1884. I trust to your sense of right to give me this space in your paper.—l an, etc., •John Rochfort. Kibikihi, October 5, 1892.

HARBOUR BOARD WORKS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Re Harbour Board. I observe by the report in your valuable paper that thin august body, after mature consideration, have decided to expend the sum of something like £10,000 in an elaborate extension to the eastern tee of the Queen-street Wharf. lam surprised to learn from the report published iu your paper, that after expending so large a sum the Board will not have one additional berth to place at the disposal of the many steamers now visiting this port. If I understand aright, the extension merely gives 20 feet additional in length and an average of about 15 feet in width, which will doubtless be a convenience to the vessels discharging; but I submit that if our wharf arrangements were properly carried out, and cargo promptly taken delivery of from the ship's slings, there would be no necessity to make the wharf any wider than at present. In Wellington the Harbour Board make a charge of 2s Qd per ton, which includes wharfage, receiving from ship's slings, classifying in the shed, and loading on the merchants' carts. Another Is per ton added to this would deliver the cargo into the merchants' warehouse, so that the Wellington merchant gets his goods delivered, including all port charges, at not exceeding 3s 6d per ton, and the work is expeditiously carried out and without any inconvenience or blocks on their wharves, although something like double the amount of cargo (including transhipments) is landed there than at this port. la Auckland our merchants have to pay 2s wharfage. The cargo is discharged by the vessel, trucked into store, and ■ classified by the shipping people ; but, as there is no system in force to compel consignees to clear their goods away with prompt despatch, the wharf stores are merelv made warehouses for the merchants, who wish to sell their produce from the wharf, and thereby save the cartage. ■ . „_j The average cost of loading «£*■ ,*£? delivery at merchants' warehouses is about Is 6d per ton, and this, added to our wharfage brings precisely the same rate as charged bv Wellington, with this difference, that .&l£s?%k h carried out>■£*■•* j cajly aiJ Auckland work is a bungle I

If the Auckland Harbour Board would run on the lines of Wellington, take over the delivery of cargo, or allow the. present receivers to form a dock company to receive and deliver goods at rates to be agreed upon, so that the merchants should not suffer, the work might go on here just as satisfactorily as it does in Wellington, and the Harbour Board might spend the £10,000 that they have proposed to throw away on the eastern tee by providing accommodation for two extra vessels.— am, etc., An Old Salt.

_ TO THE EDITOR. * Sib, —I was much grieved to see by the report of the last meeting, that the Auckland Harbour Board had resolved to proceed with a practically useless work, viz., the extension of the eastern tee at a cost of £10,000. I use the term "practically useless," as when the work is done no greater number of vessels will be able to be berthed at the tee, but only the same number of slightly greater length. Now, why do the Harbour Board persist in carrying out such a short-sighted policy? Why do they not go to work with the idea of giving good accommodation to a greater number of vessels? This could be done by building a jetty similar to No. 2 Jetty at the same expense as the proposed extension is to cost, which would afford good berths for two additional vessels ? No doubt the objection will be raised that such a work will necessitate dredging. But that is a work which must be carried out sooner or later, as in all harbours of this class silting up is continually going on. Trusting that the Board will reconsider the step before committing themselves—l am,etc., A Payee of Does. Auckland, October 8,1892. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— notice with regret that the Harbour Board have determined to spend so many thousand pounds (against the wishes of the mercantile community, and certainly not in the best interests of the port of Auckland) to enlarge and extend the outer tee of the Queen-street Wharf. I have been talking to numbers of people on the subject, and the action yof the Board seems to be almost universally condemned. Then why should the people who pay the wharfage dues allow it to be done ? Surely the members of the Board will stay their hands until the subject has been properly ventilated and decided by the citizens, aided, as you, Mr. Editor, very properly said, by a competent engineer if necessary. I think, sir, everyone is agreed that Quay-street Jetty has been a great success, and there is ample room for one or two more of the same kind, say at the Fishmarket, or the foot of Albert-street, or, if necessary, where the Ferry Wharf now is. I hope the merchants will wake up before it is too late in their own interests.—l am, etc., One of Them. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln your issue of Thursday's date, " Ratepayer," in his letter, points out the action of the Board in expending money in widening the eastern tee at the end of the main wharf, which money would have been better expended otherwise, and to better advantage, especially as the proposed additions "would not allow an extra steamer to be berthed." Now, sir, if the Board had merely passed the money that was required for repairs. and spent the rest on additions that would give extra accommodation, such as might easily be placed to increase the length of wharf No. 2, in Quay-street, the requirements of the port would have been better met, as, by so doing, additional accommodation for two Union steamers could have been obtained. What appeared to me the strangest thing, however, was that the Board, in the face of a resolution passed at a previous meeting, for the consideration of the employ- , ment of an engineer, should expend any further money until that point had been disposed of. I cannot help thinking that there was unseemly haste in the action of the Board. Evidently they do not want professional advice that might go against their views. It is to be hoped that better counsels will prevail, and that even now the Board will reconsider their decision as to professional advice as to their works, and so retrieve themselves from a grave responsibility, and the public from anxiety as to their actions.—lam,&c, T. A. Menzies. TO the editor. ! —The Harbour Board members, or some of them, are not alive to the importance of bringing shipping up to the shore. They seem more disposed to encourage the " cart industry " do v. a the wharf than provide facilities for incoming vessels. I find they persist in spending £10,000 or more on the eastern tee. The repairs are right enough, but that idea of a narrow strip to widen it for the sake of cart accommodation is a waste of money. They state there are more steamers coming to the port than formerly. Then why in the name of common sense don't they provide extra berths for them ? I am glad to hear that the Mayor of Auckland was not among the number who voted for froviding this extra cart accommodation. £ the members who voted for this job were carted down and shot over the end of the wharf it would be regrettable in many ways, and end in a lamentable tragedy; the only consoling thought would be that their places might be filled with better men, and the incident would lead to more lifebuoys being provided along the pier.—l am, etc., Coming Steamer, THE GOVERNOR'S RECEPTION. TO THE EDITOR, Sir,—Surely "A Well-Wisher" of your columns of to-day cannot have read the ac - count of the 25,000 men, women, and children who took part in the musical festival at the Crystal Palace, in London, in July, 1891, with only the lead of one or two trumpeters. Had he done so, he would have seen that there was " uniform pitch and rhythm." He would also have noticed how well qualified these people— the most part children of 12 to 16 years of age— of performing far more difficult musical items than the National Anthem, and also the emphatic testimony of Sir John Stainer, M.A., Mus. Doc, and others, as to their wonderful success at that fathering, when a few hours afterwards Sir John gave a piece of rather difficult music to an organist at the Crystal Palace, which was played over twice, each singer at the first playing over writing his or her part down, and then the whole 5000 sang the composition off unaccompanied. Sir John inspected some of the parts, written down by the individual singers, and said he was astonished at their correctness in every detail, and at the manner in which his composition had been sung. Surely, therefore, if the London school children can achieve such a wonderful feat, the Auckland school children can do likewise, as they are trained upon the very same principles. No "fiasco" was anticipated then, nor do I think there is any chance of such being the case under the leadership of Mr. J. L. Innes. However, I should be inclined to adopt the suggestion of " A Well-Wisher " with regard to the " band and earnest rehearsals." — am, etc., A Student of a London Musical October 10,1892. College. t MATERIALISM. TO THE editor. Sir,— should like to know by what warrant Miss Edger calls Professor Huxley the " high priest of materialism." I am under the impression that he would emphatically repudiate the name. It is many years since Berkeley knocked the bottom out of Materialism, and I am not aware that Huxley has ever tried to put it in again.— am, etc., J.G. MOCK TRIALS. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— to-day's issue of the Herald I see "A Member" complains of the mock trials held by certain literary societies as tending to degrade the legal profession. Why should it be so? Why should not the lawyers amuse themselves in that manner, if it is for amusement they do so, as well as in any other? When we see children dressing up and playing at housekeeping, do we say that their innocent pleasure tends to lower or degradethe standard of the adults, whom they are mimicking "A Member" says ,: " No doubt we shall next have the entertainment provided in the theatre, with these same performers appearing at so much a ticket." I think it is hardly likely; it comes into the drama quite often enough to render it wholly unnecessary and unlikely, for the members of the profession to start on their own account. And as to their profession in the manner " A Member hints at, though, like the other point, it is not very likely, it would hardly be worse than the way some of our citizens advertise thenprofessions and trades. I taint -& member's" indignation at these harmless mock trials is wholly uncalleJJ^'JUji^ Auckland, October 7,1892.