THE CANAL REPORT.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13157, 2 July 1908, Page 6

THE CANAL REPORT.

'line memorandum presented to the Harbour Board yesterday by its engineer is a useful and interesting appendix to the report of the ]_r_g-_-h consulting engineers on the proposals for harbour extensions. It was a matter for general satisfaction tha. tlha. report was vecry largely in agreennent with Mt C. J. Williams's conclusion-, and that the latter'- opinions should be, to so great an. -extent, supported by one of the most eminent engineering firms in the wiorld. Where the two reports differed most widely was in calc-dating toe cost of the proposed ship canal to HVeaithcote. The consulting engineers estimated it a£ nearly _wo millions, whereas Mr Williams put it down, at only a little more than a -__i-l_toin. It was obviously due to the latter that/ without criticising Mie_s*r_ Coode, Son, and Matthews'- report, he should be given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy in the two estimates. This he has done in the memorandum we publish in this issue. As -We said at the time, the difference is mainly due to the different scale of the works proposed in the two reports. Mr WiHiaims's proposals were based on what he believed would be sufficient for the needs of th© city and district for a good many years to come; the consulting engineers, with tihe conservatism of an English firm of wide reputation, planned the works on a more solid and extensive scale. Thus they advise that the bottom width of the canal should be -50ft _ instead of 200 ft, that the sides be faced with stone, that the depth at the entrance be 35ft at low water, instead of 30ft, that the moles end! the staging be constructed more strongly, and; that the shed acoommodation and plant be increased. Mr Williams admits in several cases -that these variations from his plan would be an improv-taent—the question is whether they are necessary. That would, of course, be for tbe Board to decide if they determined in favour of a canal, but it will occur to most people that if the project could be carried through for something like a million, so that, if required, at some future time it could be enlarged at reasonable cost, it would be folly to Ejpend two millions on it now. As Mr Williams says, if harbour works are planned on too largo a scale in the first instance the excessive charges necessary simply drive trade away. That is a point which tho Board) will no don-bt take into consideration j when they discuss the report and de-' cide on their future action.