LYTTELTON HARBOUR.

Press, Volume V, Issue 13598, 6 December 1909, Page 8

LYTTELTON HARBOUR.

Mr Hugo Friedlander, Chairman of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, requests us to publish the following letter, which he has addressed to the Hon. H. F. Wigram, M.L.C. :— Dear Sir, —When placing before the hon. members of the Legislative Council your case in connection with the Lyt-telton-___tchurch railway charges Ton are reported in the ''Lytteltoi Times" of December 2nd, page 7, t< have made the following reference t< Lvttelton Harbour: — *lst. "The Port of Lyttelton was be coming inadequate, and something wouk have to be done in a very short time to improve it. - ' 2nd. "The only way tc do it was to go two miles further along to Gollans Bay." 3rd. "The Cana Sheme has been received with populai support." 4th. "I am not taking a partisan view, I am trying to enlighten th« Council. Owing to the difference on the Harbour Board improvements necessarj at Lyttelton were not carried out. xh« dredge, for instance, was not working. :: Assuming that the foregoing is a correct version of what you have said, 1 ant sorry that in your commendable efforts to have justice done to Canterbury, you should have, unwittingly, no doubt, accused the Board of not doing its duty to the Port and the public of North Canterbury, _ou could scarcely have studied the position, or you would not have made remarks which cannot possibly be supported either from facts or data. Relative to Nos. 1 and 2, let mc give you Mr Cyrus Williams's (the Board's Engineer) own words. In his report dated Bth of May, 1903, when referring to the suggestion to engage in reclamation towards Battery Point (near Gollan's Bay), he writes as follows:— 'Such an extension would only be justified in connection with the proposals that have been mooted by constructing another harbour, enclosed by break-water, below the present one; but as the present enclosed harbour can easily be made capable as far as the water front is concerned, of accommodating twice, or thrice the present trade, I think the exhaustion of all tne available spaces should be in sight before any action is taken towards building another harbour." Now, what is the true position? On _ie basis of increase, upon which the Beard as a whole has unanimously agreed, and which estimated increase has been found from the trade done by the Port, to have been very accurately gauged, about the year 1949 or 40 years hence, the Board would have to deal with something like 900,000 tons of cargo; whilst thrice the volume of j trade of the Port would be something like £1,350,000, and would be reached | (again working on the agreed Oasis of increase) a few years before the expiry of the present century. Apparently, then, by following the Engineer's estimate of 1903, the Port has a space within the moles capable of being made to serve the increase of trade for anything between 50 and 80 years. Moreover the Board has during the months of May and June last ascertained' the following important facts—that with the present wharf accommodation at Lyttelton the volume of trade which it is possible to cope with at Lyttelton annually is equal to nearly 1,015,000 tons. For instance, while tonnage handled for the weeks ended May 22nd, May 29th, June 19th. and June 26th was 19,560 tons, 16,726 tons, 252.665 tons, and 16,369 tons respectively, the weekly average on the basis of last year's (1908) total trade was only 9515 tons. Further, during the period of the above working one of the Board's best dieep-watcr wharves, No. 4 jetty, was, not available for berthage, being dosed for repairs. The figures, therefore, are undoubted proof that your contention that "tho Port of Lyttelton was becoming inadequate" is erroneous, on the other hand they are- an eloquent testimony in support of the conclusion come to by the Board, that even with the present wharfage space, Lyttelton is capable of doing quite double the present trade, and that the port need not be removed two miles further. In addition I may be allowed to point out that there is still room in the present enclosed harbour for three more jetties, which when built will nearly double the wharfage accommodation for large ocean-going steamers. With reference to your remarks under the 3rd headimj:—lt may be the oase a* far as Christcburoh is concerned, that the canal scheme has been received with popular support, but I can assure you as far as the country is concerned such is not the case. _ I am in doubt if the scheme even in Christchurch is looked upon with favour, judging By the- meagre support the Cana- League has received from the Christchuroh people, and the ridiculously small attendance of the public at the meeting held at Christchurch on the sth or October last. Relative to No. 4. I hope you will excuse mc for saying that it would have been more to the point had you made yourself fully conversant with the -acts on this question before you endeavoured to enlighten tbe . hon. members of your Council, which statement to say the least is misleading. Whatever may he the difference of opinion between the members of the Board on the question of the canal it is only fair to the members as a whole to say that the progress of the Port | of Lyttelton and the work necessary to be done to keep it well up to its requirements as a first-class port have not been, and are not in any way hampered by either those in favour or against the canal—as the following will conclusively prove: — Ist. The dredges, unless laid up for repairs or when to be overhauled, have not stopped working. 2nd. The BoaTd will very shortly finish the rebuilding and lengthening of am; of the largest wharves, viz., No. 4 jetty. 3rd. The Board has recently and ruite unanimously decided to purchase _ Priesrtman dredge at the cost of £11,000, a_i it is expected that this -redge will be at work at Lyttelton in about nine months time. 4th. The Board, further, about ihree months ago decided to go in for -eclaiming about 72 acres outside tbe vestern mole at an estimated oost of learly £36,000. This decision was also unanimous. sth. At the lastmeetingof the Board (and. with only one dissentient—Mr Colin Cook, one of the strongest opponents to the canal) decided for our Engineer to visit Europe to investigate the "Fruhling," or any other system of dredging which he may consider suitable to Lyttelton harbour; with power to obtain either tenders or quotations, as he may deem best in the interests of the Board, for such a dredge as he shall have decided upon as the most suitable—such tenders or quotations to be submitted for the Board's consideration—estimated cost £40.000. 6th. And finally, there is now before the Harbour Improvement Committee Mr Millers notice of motion to build another jetty, or to re-build No. 2 wharf, estimated cost £25,500 and £15,700 respectively. You will admit, sir, that taking the foregoing works done and to be done by tlie Board, the improvements necessary at Lyttelton to keep pace with the requirements of the port have not in any way been' neglected by tbe pres- ' ent members. As a matter of fact, \ there never has been a time since the original breakwaters were formed when the expenditure has been so great 1 md when so many improvements have J been made and contemplated as has been during the- past year or two, and ' i am rather inclined to think that, J considering the falling off of imports, , R-e are going ahead a little too fast. ' in conclusion, allow mc to ask you ' n fairness to the Harbour Board and j n justice to the port, to bring before , the hon. members of the Legislative _

Councd the foregoing facts. I shall consider it my duty to enlighten the here by having this letter pub"shed ln papers.— Yours, etc., HUGO FRIEDI-ANDER, Chairman.