Port And City—lll CANAL SCHEME WAS TENACIOUS RIVAL

Press, Volume C, Issue 29616, 12 September 1961, Page 12

Port And City—lll CANAL SCHEME WAS TENACIOUS RIVAL

[Specially written for "The Press” by C. THOMPSON, M A.J

To understand something of the battle of ideas that raged for many years over the problem of communication between Christchurch city and its port, we must look briefly at the history of the rival schemes. So much was said and written on those schemes that a book could be devoted to each. Only the bare outline of the history of the canal scheme—to take It first—can be given here. In the earliest plans for Christchurch, provision was made to reserve land frr a canal. Until recent years the continuation of Linwood avenue beyond Buckleys road was commonly known as Canal reserve. Supporters of access - by - water schemes were active very early; but. as previous articles have shown, the tunnel idea won the first round of the battle. The initial success of the railway tunnel and the transport advantages it brought to the city and the province caused a lull in the agitation for any further facilities. This was not to last for long. After a brief interval the battle was resumed and the contest entered another phase. Before the end of the century some were thinking again in terms of access by water. Others began to think that the time was coming when additional access by land would be desirable Or necessary. Bailway “Monopoly” “The fate of our great and growing commerce, of all our export and import trade, depends on the single line through the railway tunnel and it is not generally understood how much Canterbury is suffering every day in consequence of our apathy.” said the Hon. C. C. Bowen. M.L.C., in 1900 in a contribution to the book, “Canterbury, Old and New.” He went on to complain of “unjust" taxation: the province that initiated the railway tunnel was now being “mulcted" by the Railway Department, which had no opposition, he said. “The Government literally has this province by the throat and it will be hard to make it relax its grip so long as it has the monopoly,” he said. His words no doubt reflect some of the feeling of the time; but it is interesting to note why Mr Bowen was emphasising these points. He wished, even at that stage, to see the Sumner road made into a highway. But he was out of time and out of place; there being few champions for this or any other alternative. the battle narrowed down to canal versus tunnel Whether the tunnel should be for a road or extra railway lines was not at first defined. The canal supporters were earlier in the field and consequently at first were better organised than the tunnel enthusiasts. Revived seriously in 1894, a canal scheme was gathering supporters in the early years of the present century. Mr Charles Allison and Dr. H. T. J. Thacker, both prominent in local and national politics, were ardent in the cause. Mr Allison, mayor of Christ-

cnurcn, in tnose yeuis. closely associated with the history pf Sydenham, was. at a large meetiag in 1908, elected chairman of a newlyformed Canal League. At the same time Dr. Thacker became president of the league, a position he was to hold until 1925. From 1929 to 193he was chairman of the league. In 1919 Dr. Thacker was elected mayor of Christchurch as the nominee of the Port Christchurch League. Dr. Thacker’s connexion with the league was an outstanding one. But there we 3 e many other enthusiasts who campaigned diligently and ceaselessly. Source of Enthusiasm We may well wonder now at the source of all this enthusiasm. We may also wonder why, when the tunnel road scheme was put forward, there should be such intense rivalry, even bitterness, between two groups who sought the same end though by different means. As it it fashionable now to try to classify people into types, it is tempting to assume that there are those who naturally think in terms of water and others in terms of land. There must be some deep-seated reason for all the effort expended and sustained over a long period. It is impossible not to admire the enthusiasm that was maintained in the face of all the opposition and the setbacks that the canal supporters had to contend with. More than one commission of inquiry examiped the problem closely, studied possible alternatives, and then declared against a canal. A commission as early as 1912 reported adversely; but the canal enthusiasts were undaunted. In 1919 the fight was intensified to meet the opposition of the tunnel road scheme then being organised by Mr H. G. Ell. Again there were commissions and reports, none of them favourable. even if not all were actually opposed to the canal scheme. What kept the fight going so long? Was it perhaps the spirit of the pioneers still strong within these people—the pioneers who had come from a country very canalconscious? England, starting with an initial extensive waterway system provided by its many rivers, early conceived the idea of connecting the rivers by canals at various points. At the time the colonists left England for Canterbury, the canal system in the Homeland would be just about in its heyday. Later, with the development of railways, the canals fell largely into neglect except for incidental uses; but the colonists would undoubtedly remember the canals as they were at the time of their departure from England. Some of the supporters of the canal scheme, notably Dr. Thacker, were only one generation removed from the canal-conscious motherland. Dr. Thacker’s parents arrived in one of the First Four Ships. Death-knell in 1944 It is impossible within the limits of this brief survey to go into details of the many meetings, conferences, reports, speeches and writings in support of, or in opposition to, the canal kcheme. The simple fact is that the project, for more than half a century, not merely survived but showed a lusty vigour that maintained it) as a possible solution of the problem of Christchurch's access to the sea until quite recent times. Its death-knell was sounded in 1944 by Mr Robert Semple, then Minister of Works, in a typically forth-* right and colourful declaration. By this time the rising costs of public work* had increased the original disparity between the estimated costs of the canal and the tunnel; and cost, both in capital outlay and maintenance, had always been the weakest part of the canal enthusiasts’ case In January, 1944. both the Canal - Port Christchurch League and the Tunnel Road League sent deputations to wait on Mr Semple during a visit to Christchurch by the Minister Whereas the tunnel road scheme was then estimated to cost about £700.000 the canal scheme wanted £5 million. In answer to the deputation from the Port Christchurch League. Mr Semple said:— “Personally I am not impressed with your scheme. I want to be quite frank with you. I don’t think you have a do £s chance of persuading the Government to consider a £5 pillion gamble.” Mr Semple said he doubted if the port could be kept open even if it was established, considering its exposure to the elements. Bar harbours, he said, had caused more unnecessary trouble and expense than any other undertaking in New Zealand. Is that the end. of the story? Or will the canal idea Phoenix-like, come to life once more after a while? One of my own friends declares. A port in the Estuary must tome.” Who knows? For the present the triumph is, once more, to the tunnel, the development of which, from the days of the first victory of the railway, will be sketched In the concluding articles. (To be Continued)