The Press. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1907. M. TURHETTINI IN REPLY.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12936, 16 October 1907, Page 6

The Press. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1907. M. TURHETTINI IN REPLY.

Tho correspondent who writes to Uβ cnoloeine a letter from M. Turrcttini, j' wJjicli appear* in another column, ie ■quite correct when lie assumes that in writing About tho Chevres installation end ite hearing on tho "Waimakariri scheme we have simply the advancement! of Canterbury at heart. If tho Wilmakariri scheme is proved to bo feasible from an engineering point of view, end profitable financially, we shell bo most anxious to see it carried ■ out. Both theeo things have yet to bo proved, however, nml in tho moantirao wo nro anxious tint tho proposal ■hall bo moat carefully considered in' •1! Uβ bearings, so that the Council shall not adopt it if it is likely to prove to be a mistake., end thus lead to tho retardation of tho community And not its advancement. Tho anxiety of Dunedin et tho present timo in regard to tho hydro-electric scheme ■which it adopted, apparently without sufficient premeditation, is in itself o warning oa to tho necessity of ciution i'u embarking on a work of euch magnitude, involving factors of considerable iraoerteinty. Our correspondent, howovor, does us en injustice in bccusing Uβ of "attacking" Monsieur Turinetead of "attickine' , the Waimakariri scheme. We have the most friendly feelings towards M. Turrettdni, although wo havo not tho honour of knowing him personally, and respect him cc a man of coneideriblo emanonco in his profc*eion. Nor havo wo "attacked" tho Waimakariri schemo —wo have anorely urged that it should bo thoroughly considered and disrcuseed. Our correspondent eaye its .Vulnerable i»ittt it, "Cm you or can "you not got aufficient wat<-r frsw from "ehiiujleby Mr Dobson'e plan?" That, UodoubV« onov«ry imiwrtoiit ques-

tion to be decided ; but another equally important is cc to whether tho works, supposing them to be quite sound from an engineering point of view, will prove a profitable investment to the city when they aro constructed. We have refeired to M. Turrettini and the Chevres installation, of which he is th« author, for two reasons. From the very first stage of the discussion on the Waimakariri scheme, the Geneva enterprise, has been held up to us a» an examplo which we ought to copy, and a •very strong effort was made to £et the City Council to spend two thousnul guineas in getting M. Turrettini to com© out here to report on the Waimakariri scheme. Surely, therefore, it was a very pertinent subject of enquiry to find out, if possible, how far tho Geneva works wer<» a succei*, both from an engineering and a financial point of view. But we venture to think this enquiry has a still wider bearing on our own problem. Tho Geneva installation was designed by an engineer of European reputation, dealing with a river whoec conditions had been thoroughly studied and kept under close scientific observation for many yeers. If that work failed to give satisfaction, from an en-

ginwrina ix>in-t of view, and prcrtec! unsuccessful financially, does this not afford a very good reason why the Christchurch City Council should ao cept with caution nnd reserve the advice of engineers of leas eminence and experience, dealing with a river more erratic than the Rhone, and concerning which, for lack of detailed and systematic observations, far less is known from a scientific point of view! .

Tho letter from M. Turrettini; which our correspondent is good enough to forward, does not seem to ue to require nny lengthened reply from "The Press." Before writing tho article of May 6th wo carefully read not only the report of tho Commission from which we quoted, but also M. Turrettini's reply. We do not presume to be able to decide whero these high engineering experts differ. The fact with which we were concerned was that tho Municipal Council, with whom tho responsibility lay, were so much impressed with the views of tho Commissioners that they spent nearly three million francs—some £111,054 to be more exact—in carrying out their chief recommendations. We have the authority of the Director of the Electric Service for saying that these new works have given good lesults, as is shown by an increase of the giose receipts from 704,706 francs in 1901 to 972,955 francs in 1906. M. Turrettini says that the- new works huvo proved a mistake, because the increased cost of maintenance has more than kept paco with tho increased receipts, thus reducing the net profits. If thie is true, it immensely strengthens our argument as to the necessity of great caution being exercised by the Christchurch City Council before accepting the estimates md optimistic prognostications of our local ongircore, M. Turrettini has evidently misread what we said iif regard to the intake canal, which was as follows:—"The Arve is tur- " bid with sediment, but what it brings "down is not to be compared with the " immenee quantities of shingle carried "by the Waimakariri. Yet the report " of the experts put as ono great cause " of the disappointing results from the "the Chevres work, tho silting up of " the intake canal, and the blocking of " the gratings and distributors connect- "«\ with tho turbines." Wβ ucvor said thorefore thut the intake was " tstructed with shingle. ,. As to 'ho nature of the obstructions there wjs a difference of opinion between M. 3'>rrettini andl the experts, but the latter reported strongly ou the silting m> ot tho channel and obstruction of the gratings. They not only recommended tk« construction of the large grating, which has been carried out, but an enlargement of the >ntako canal, which latter has not been undertaken, probably owing u>th-s expense. In regard, to M. Turreutnu's statement thit tho steam plant has only been used on two days since it tins completed eighteen months ago, it may bo that either the Rhone has been behaving itself in a more orderly fashion sine© tho reserve installation was provided 1 , or else the improvements to the hydraulic works have been more effective than M. Turrettini is disposed to admit. The Commission were very emphatic in their statement that tho mend for power exceeded , tho minima available at certain seasons by 4000 h.p.- They quite recognised that the steam plant would ouly be required occasionally at first, but heldi that as the consumption increased it would be fully employed during a portion of each summer, and would even have to be added to.

"W© <lo not quite understand the logic of the concluding portion of M. Turrettini's letter. The report of the experts, he states in effect, has been drawn up with a political object to prove that what ho had done for twenty years to provide the city of Geneva with hydraulic power was badly dono. "Hnppily," he says, "the " financial results are there to prove "the contrary. According to the report of 1906 ihe net return of the " industrial services of the city of " Genera, water, gas and- electricity, " has been 12.56 per cent., making a " return of 3,552,000 france, on a capi- " tal employed of 27,000,000 france." It is true that nil these departments show a return of 12.56 per cent., but M. Turrottini has omitted to supply the details an to the different undertakings. He has also misquoted the actual receipts end the capital upon which the percentage is based. W« ar* able to supply the correct details from the official document to which he re-

fers. They ere as ander: — i « Work,. §*§ Sf §2* Wfttexworki .. 4,656.676 4 634,406 18.70 P ffim.) 10JM.MI ».ei Electric Service 4,356.388 4.644.585 1..18 O«, .. .. 6.889,934 6.965,073 14. <1 Tramwayi •• i3 "' m mjßOi 19C5

25,001.010 37,188,129 1Z59 Net receipt* from above wrview, 3,136,761. It should be explained that the capital account of the Chettee works given above merely represents the amount invested by the city in the undertaking. The waterworks, electric eervice, gas and, tramways, it will be seen, are all highly profitable. The Cherxee installation, ac we explained yesterday, shows a considerable loss, sinoe the 5.61 per cent, (further reduced, if we take tho whole capital into account, to 5.26 per cent.) hee to provide for interest, sinking fund and depreciation. The experte merely had to report on the Chevres work, and it is this alone with which "The Press" is concerned. Why, then, does M. Turrettini seek to confuse the issue by lumping all those services together? If it was not done for the purpose of misleading—which we refuse to believe—it shows c lack of logic which we should not have expected to find in a trained engineer.