THROUGH THE ISTHMUS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 90, 16 April 1913, Page 4

THROUGH THE ISTHMUS.

CANAL BOUT-- DISCUSSED.

A QUESTION FOR ENGINEERS.

The conference of delegates from Varies! ous local 'bodies and organisations inter? • ESted in the water connection, by canal, $i the Manukau and Waitemata Hajxlg ■hours with .the Waikato decided to che question of the most suitable route and most suitable type at canal to the " Harbour Board for final recommendation, after taking expert advice. The motion originally submitted, contained, definite approval of the Tamaki route for tlio construction of a barge canal Following is a resume of the discussion after the '•Star" went to press yesterday::— Mr A. iMcColl (vice-president of the Industrial Association) contended that ■the district .served -by such a canal ae' the one proposed was the natural industrial centre of Auckland. He deprecated what appeared to be the tendency of the Harbour Board to centralise all shipping transport at Auckland. ■ Mr A. S. Holmes (Oneluinga Chamber of Commerce) seconded the mption, and urged that a Tamaki canal was to be approved on account of its cheapne&e, Hi ac compared with the great cost of % building a. deep water canal on .the Whaii 1 route. He deprecated the attitude adopted by the Harbour Board towards Onelrunga Harbour, and urged that theTamaki route was really the best route -•; for the west side of the isthmus. ' : -\l] Air J. Park (Onehunga Chamber of im Commerce) said that .the Whau scheme ,; if carried into effect would be impossibly " expensive in the matter of dues, whereas ' the Tamaki proposition wae a compara- « tively cheap one. The former, heJSSS claimed, would cost £2,000 per week fof|s upkeep, whereas ithe latter could be v maintained for £200 per week: Mr G. L. Taylor (Onehunga Chamber of Commerce) and Mr Dillicar (Op.eSH lmnga- Borough Council) both strong] JSß supported the motion. * Mr J. M. ilennie (Chamber of Com- ,*i merce) protested that' it was unfair toj|| the mercantile community of Auckland to suggest that .the interests of One-sis hunga -.rere being made subservient .t'6;'s| those of Auckland. Expert engineering v ~|j advice had been, to the effect that ifcrjja was desirable to connect the two bours by a , deep water canal. The bargt 'i canals could came, and would come, later. ."3 It .was thought better to control >: commerce from the east side,-and the ; ?; Tamaki route was IS miles further from , Manukau Ileads than wae necessary, in j addition to which there wae an uncer- ■..;£ tain bar at the Tamaki. Thk prefeiehej||M for the Whau route did not apply tojai ■barge canals, however. At the same time '.J barge transport was too clow for theee|jj days. It was jmuch better to begiii|«| with something that would make for thc'iff immediate benefit of Auckland. The ideal'lß was to make the Manukau Harbojijri§« open direct to Sydney, and OnehwigiJSjl would benefit just ac much as Auckland.'| The Auckland feorimmnity entertained i| the most friendly feelings towards OnerSt hunga. ■ Mr J. E. Taylor opposed the motion. e?j He said that the proposal of the eyndi4:l| cate for the Whau canal wae to seeureilS a monopoly of the canal construction I rjgkcs ofm 50 miles of the-'Waikato-River" for" same period. The \yater carriage of eoiljß alone from theWaikato-by-Jjarge woulJe ,the expense of- eonfitructiiigM a Tamaki canal. . - •: Mr J. W. Ellis'(Hamilton Clio Commerce) affirmed the principle of haTiffl ing a canal, but said that so far 'as-tlufl men from the country - they preferred not to commit themseivelfS to any route. That really .was.a .quesfiH tion for engineers. What they wantellS was canal connection between the Waiail kato and the Manukau. •Mr A. Glass (Waikato River BoardHH eaid that the talk of Onehunga Auckland was no -use to the AYaikatijnß farmers. They wanted cheap transporgW for their »produce. The Auckland bour Board should threeh out the qutMsH tion of the routee, get reports from com||fi petent .engineers, a-nd then consult thafi Waikato farmers as to how 'the W»i|S| kato was to be connected' with tKeW scheme. ■ Mr Jno. Rowe (Mayor- of Onehunga OH explained "that he had always the Tamaki route, but not as a barge I canal. Everyone should, however, clfl their .best to have the. iW*ikak> canai . scheme pushed forward. Hr believed ." that- Onehunga was the back door of ■ Auckland—it waa simply one city with -j two ports—and what w'ae in the' inter- 'i ests of the one was in the interests of,: :, the other. ',*"'' ' ' ' \ : -.soi At .this etage the motion, was by the the word "barge," and, : after Mr Pilkington (Ta-maki West Road Board) had'spoken to the motion; it was | adopted in the form that it submitted an urgent request to the Harbour Board to obtain the best engineering advke ; . available as to routes, and then to call, a further conference of all local bodies ' interested.