THE CANAL QUESTION.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16506, 25 April 1919, Page 5

THE CANAL QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF ' I TITB FKESS." Sir, —Your correspondent "Thin Wedge" iu this morning's issue of "The Press" once again recapitulates from the Coode report all the objections that firm could find against the project, and also the assertions of the Canal Commissioners. Mr Cyrus Williams fully explained in -a memorandum how tno English engineers arrived at the/ 'enormous cost" spoken of by "Tnin Wedge, and he effectively met the ten principal reasons in ten paragraphs. Is not Mr Williams a British engineer? His opinion on harbour works generally, m important discussions that have taken place verbally and by correspondence among the members of the British Institute; is listened to with the greatest respect, harbour engineering being his specialty, why, then, does "Thin Wedge!' not pay some honour to the prophet in his own country? "The incessant dredging and maintenance,'' reiterates "Thin Wedge." Yes, it is incessant, but not novel by any means. In the magnificent harbour of Sydney, "natural" and all, as it is, 1,300,000 tons of spoil had to bo lifted out of it last year. These so-called criticisms reallv the question. It is nonsense to specially refer to dredging as an objection, when e r ~ry port has to dredge. The Canal Commissioners prophesied in pessimistic strain, and theii assertions were countered by Mr C. J ilison in a, large pamnhlet of 17 pages, which probably "Thin Wedge" has never seen, or, if seen, never read, because ho is obviously too biased to listen to tlio other side. If the Canal Commissioners asserted that £1,000,000 -worth of assets "would be destroyed at ILyttclton if ■we chanced to a Port Christchurch, it most seriously discounts the rest of their findings, 'iiiey probably said nothing of the sort. They assumed, on the contrary, thai "Lyttelton would retain at least one-third of the trade, and I that two-thirds would be diverted to the canal." If that is the case, will "Thin Wedge'' kindly quote exactly what' 'thev did say in relation to the above £1,000,000? Also when and whore did tho Minister of Railways say he would not connect up with the new port by rail ? It is a serious statement to make if true, and if not true, what becomes of "Thin Wedge"? With what ravenous voracity does "Thin Wedge" rush at a slip of Dr. Thacker's in relation to sewage! Is every utteranco by every canal advocate in their thousands to bo charged with Divine wisdom? Surely this is too much to expect in this imperfect world. "Double handling" will not bo avoided at Lyt.teltoii until a Christchurch lorry can go on the wharf and get the goods out of a shed. . Much, very much, water will flow under t.ho bridges before that happens, but "Thin Wedge" affects not to see any difficulty. He has the telescope to tiis blind eye, and yet a tunnel is absolutely no' use unless it can bring this state of tilings about. Therefore there can be no compromise; the issues'are either a Port ChristcJiurch, or things practically as they are, or with such improvements a-s" may be brought about by tinkering witll the railway time-table. To illustrate the value of water carriage, we can refer once again to Manchester. At the present moment they are doing their best to "scrap" Liverpool, so far as they are concerned, and look at what they have paid to do it! Js "Thin Wedge" prepared to question the sagacity of the Manchester man? He is gen: rally credited with possessing the shrewdest brains in England. But vour correspondent is certainly not fa seeing. Assuming that his intentions are honest, bis advocacy of further tunnels to a hopeless proposition like Lvticlton .shows him to bo behind the* times. "Double handling - ' kills us. . It has driven dozens of firms to seek head quarters elsewhere. Whv .have Ncifon, Monte anil Co., il. Burry and Co., W underlieh. Dunlop IJubber, Alcoek's Billiard Tables, to quote a verv few, departed hence, and 1 ft only branches? Ciidoubtcdiy '"double handing" was. the chief cause. Tlus enterprise, of a Port Christ-church, if it had the lacking it merits from Ashbarton to Kaikoura, would be relatively a small affair for such a wealthy community—it can bo compaied to a company recently formed in this town which proposes to assume responsibility for a sura exceeding the cost of one of the Port Christoo»rcli schemes. Surely if two or three private Anns can round np a million capital, 'he whole countryside can doit.—Yours etc., ' HEATHCOTE.