NEW HARBOUR

Gisborne Times, Volume LIX, Issue 9577, 31 July 1923, Page 5

NEW HARBOUR

ENGINEER APPROVES REYj NOLDS' SCHEME. - Jhe eagerly awaited leport of ih.e ' Harbor Engineer, in whi ii he iv- ; commends a scheme for harbor con- ; struct ion. «n< presented to the nieot- ' mg of _ the Board yesterday lor coni’ stderni ion. The report stated; "1 have examined the many .schemes for harbor development which have ’men placed before the Board since ; time of Sir John Goode in IsSil. I • have also investigated the existing j conditions in the river and at the ! entrance to the harbor and an, of the ! opinion that- it would he useless to | attempt the construe lieu of a harbor | having its entrance as at present, j that is. at the month of the Turaugatitti River, oil account of the sill age ; ensuing alter heavy .rains. la in,; ; brought down the river and tlepu-.1.' : ill the harbor, it will he ncre-y. therefore, when considering the development of a harbor for Gisborne, to adopt a plan which will eliminate the si It age brought down bv the liter from the prospective harbor. This ; can be accomplished by constructing j.tlie harbor clear of the river or by ‘diverting file river clear of the proposed harbor. In the many schemes submitted to the Board during the past forty-tinee years there have h> on projects of both kinds. Schemes which leave tho entrance as at p-e- ---’ sent—and there are ioanv such—have

soul —am; lucre arc* many sues —nave j been discarded through failure to cumi ply with the essential feature mentioned above. Schemes suggesting the diver.-ion of the Uaimata River above the Kaili bridge involve undertakings of considerable magnitude would be very costly, and cannot be recommended on that’ account. Schemes I having their sites .vrmewliat n inov-xl j from the present harbor have been :uit forward, and although there is ; much which can he said in favor of | these, the fact that they are situate ; at some distance from existing ae- '■ tivilies as compared with others is : against their adoption. Schemes indi- ; eating the diversion of tho Turauganui River to the eastward and which provide for the harbor entrance to he in its present position or to the west- ; ward are numerous. However. in I vo w of the fact that the force ol Hie I-sea is from the south-east the effect 1 of which would he to bring the river discharge aexoss the entrance and block it. these schemes also must he discarded. "I desire t-o mention two schemes, each of which has supporters amongst the members of the Board;— (1.) Tho Kaiti Wainu: diversion cut. (2) The A’.vapuni scheme. "With Toloroneo to the former, it, is on record in tills office that borings have been taken by the Board’s staff under >1 lie supervision of the works foreman who states in his report;— Boring No. o.—Two attempts were made to Imre tu the required depth of 50ft. Boring No. (sa.—At left Ike augur could be pushed through | the. ground with little pressure. Borj iug No. Ob.— 15ft to 2lil the augur I wont down without turning or pres- | sure, and lour men were not able to | pull the augur out. which had to be . levered out on account of the suc- ; tlon. Boring No. 7 (which has to go ; down to 55ft).--.30 to 33 feet soft. The ; fact that the nature of the material j is as described indicates that this de- ; sign would nut lie a straightforward j work of excavation only. What would I happen in such material in time of I floods can he. readily understood— I the silt would he scoured out for a considerable width; subsidence would occur, and tho extent of the ensuing damage is impossible to eslinmie. i am therefore of the opinion that the ' work could not be carried out satis- : fneiorilv lor the amount staled in Mr VicLernmn’s report, but would \ cost considerably more, and in eon- : sideration of the fact that suitable provision can be made by a diversion , of the river at a very much less cost, j I cannot recommend the further eon- j sideration of this scheme at the lire- j sent time. ■ "With regard to the Awapuni scheme; A boring has been put down ; to 70ft at the eastern end of the la- . goon, from which specimens of material passed through have been obtained. These specimens indicate that, the material to a depth of 56ft * is . siltv sand, sand predominating, the . remaining 14ft living day. Assuming that this is typical of what, maj be found over the whole area of tbr la- ' gonii. I foresee no difficulty in tho internal construction works. However, 1 before the internal works could lie utilised it would be necessary io eon- j struct protective works in the Ray, 1 such works are estimated,, to cost about £2,000,060. The whole of this sum would have to he. expended before the internal works be of any value. It is therefore. considered too costly an undertaking at present, having regard to the fact that suitable- aecoiumodation can be provided for a . very much .smaller figure. ■‘We have ielt now for consideration such schemes a.s either develop the harbor immediately to the eastward of tile present entrance or which suggest the diversion of the river to • t!;e westward. Of the fmower type, we have that submitted bwolr John Mount in 1917, the large- scheme bv • the Commission of Engineers in 1329 —the Commission of Engineers reduced scheme later in 192(1—and that by Messrs Grant and Cooke in 1922. Of the latter type we have the. schemes submitted by Mr J. G-reig in 1917 Mr Leslie Reynolds and Mr Henry White in 1921. Those by Messrs Grcig and White deal with a:i internal development only at considerable cost, and that by Ml Reynolds of a combined inner and outer harbor. I lie scheme by Mr Mount, and the larger scheme by tho Commission of Engineers, are both very large harbors aim Here ;!y would i.e extremely costly and on account of expenses are understood to be outside tiie Board’s finance. Of the three schemes remaining—that by the Commission of Engineers consisting of a single chamber li r’jor wouid prove very inconvenient, to shipping on account- of range •luring heavy weather —uirthor it would j rove a very expensive scheme for the aceunnr.fidation provided. The scheme by Messrs Grant and Cooke •if 1922 provides for a double chamber harbor and insofar as it provides for an inner chamber, it gives mere puiescent conditions within the inner chamber than does that- oi the Commission or Engineers’ single chamber scheme, but it cannot be considered •satisfactory in that there is insufficient swinging room within the inner chamber for the vessels provided for, and although this could be easily remedied it would prove a very expensive proposition for the accommodation provided. "Mr ’ Leslie Reynolds’ scheme f of 1921 ; ini.-: at the diversion of the Turangauut River to the westward ol the pre-ent ent-rr.nee and the retention of the greater portion of the present Immd berthage as an adjunct to his outer harbor scheme and in that it provides more freedom from range, is possible of development immediately adjacent to existing activities and" is capable of further development along ideal lines—it is, in my opinion, the best scheme that has been before the Board. In connection with the five major designs mentioned, these schemes have been carefully reviewed and it is considered that in no instance, could the work be car riod out for the amount estimated. In preparing my recommendation to the Board I have therefore adopted the principle put forward in the general layout of Mr Reynolds’ scheme, and have prepared ray plans along these line? with certain modifications. "More generally regarding com-par:-on between Mr Reynolds’ scheme and the recommended scheme, the salient points are herewith brieflv referred to:— ... (?) Diversion cut.—This it is propetrel to (li*tu!' *o >-!» 12rt below low wstor in Ben of the Bft. as shown by Mr Rcvnold'. the width being lessened '

.accordingly to permit of i clear channel in narrowest , i . river harbor. .(b) Slip.—Designed in a-cordaiu • ; with modern praetke for vle.-tri.all;- ■ operated slipway to act emn.odal • vessels up to -itiu tons. •c) Outer Harbor 1.-youl.—The line of outer breakwater from tin- entrance is so set out as to tend to insist- dissipation ol mime. futo-i I--. Tillage accommodation is a110y...’ f, .■ by the provision of ten berthage-. i:i lieu of live-. (d) Construction.—Ti e In eakwa te: s ’•nil be constructed of vttlibie-rili -d riinforced concrete eribwork on a rubble huso of economic depth. These cril-s will be constructed, in .skeleton, ashore, and placed m position !>v < r:\im-. The training walls, etc. to diversion cut will be constructed of r>inrorml concrete sheeting with the requisite timber fenders. The. whan ir.un the Board's workshop to slmro eml of existing breakwater will be el reinforced concrete, complete u:th ■ways, cranes, sheds, t te. "Ike scheme a.s whole now rcco'ii'i ended to the Board is sot out in Li ::: No. <. and indicates what I have in mind as the ultimate possible hor for tile port of Gisborne, which can be developed as require! along certain definite lines cammem-me. with the necessary minimum facilities to meet the present-day requirements. having extensions inumniiatcl;. adjacent thereto to lie followed up, whari by wlmrf, as may bo required fo the limit of the scheme. The

principal leatures ot the .scheme are; Tho diversion of the Turanganvi river to tho westward, thus relieving tit., harbor for all time from the trouble of silt age from the river. Tho utilisation in the first instance of the existing wlmi-ves on the Kaiti side to give ' court ol berthage with 12ft of water alongside, and 1000 ft of berthage with 18ft of water alongside, and the dredging of the necessary c-lianne. thereto. The construction of the KK.fi feet of berthage from the Board’s workshop to tho inner end of the breakwater with 18ft of water alongside. and the provision of 1100 ft oi berthage abreast of tho present breakwater with 25ft of water, together with dredging of the necessary channel and stringing area. This would, be followed'hy tho construction on the Uaikanae sido of the channel of 1 mo feet of berthage facing the ehaniie: and 600 ft return westward, leaving a channel 350 ft in width. To he succeeded in turn as required l.y the four jetties, with necessary depth oi water to meet respective require-' moots. This area would he om.-loso-! by a ureakwater formed by the continuation of the training wall on tins east side of the diverted river leading in a westerly direction, thence turui i’.ig south and south-east to form the entrance to the inner basin, and later being continued as a. protecting arm to this entrance, and then to the. sce- ■ oiig entrance and later to tile third ■ entrance, and finally as required to give protection to the outer entrance. ■ if will bo necessary a.s the extensions develop to construct the breakwaters from the Haiti beach seawards in the positions indicated, and it is to bo , noted that each of the areas enclosed is approximately the same size as ■ advocated by the Commission of En--1 gmeers and Mr Leslie Reynolds, being : capable of development piece by piece as required, eaeli section as carried, our. dove-tailing to form the uliimato whole. Tiie nun of this rceommei idnj lion is to provide for the requirements -of flip district over a reasonable length of time, and tin's I consider is achieved. •' j “'I ho ‘immediate purpose of tho scheme is to eliminate the siltago (rouble within the harbor hv the diversion of the Tunniganui River, provide facilities equal to those obtaining at present, and then progress along definite lines, developing and improving tin: harbor as may be required to meet the needs of the district. The operations necessary to achieve the foregoing are: (1) Diversion of the Tiirungamu River tortile westward, including the dredging of tiie cut and .the construction of the training walls. (2) The repairs* •strengthening and renewals of (.lie wharves ..til the fvuifi side of the river and dredging to provide necessary depth of water alongside. (3). The construction of it railway bridge adjoining Haiti bridge, and railway facilities to the Haiti 'wharves. <•!) The construction oi a slipway in lien of tho one at present in use, which is being demolished. (•>) The dredging of the channel to give 12ft of water in the find; instance, and later to 18ft. It is considered that items t, 2.3, and 4 may be completed within eighteen months provided no undue delay occurs, and the dredged channel soon afterwards which, will give the relief so much desired and .permit of uninterrupted use or t.hc harbor. It is recognised that as soon as a pcrmanoiu channel ,is available additional berthage vi'l lie required; it m therefore intended to proceed with the construction of the ltKJvJit of berthage between the Board's workshop and the inner end of tho breakwater, giving 18ft of water alongside. Tim construction of tiie breakwater would lie commenced as early as p.osfdblc, bat would not be completed till later. It is prono ed tu commence this operation so that the 'benefits most urgently required will be obtained first and the construction followed along lilies which will give best, protection to the harbor. If if _is desirable at this juncture to jn’ovido for the accommodation of overseas vessels, the 1100 ft of Ikirthago abreast of the present breakwater could brv constructed with 25ft of water alongside and the, necessary channel and swinging area dredged. The groyne on the west side of the present entrance would be removed a.s soon as: convenient to permit of the widening of the channel, and also as a means of dispersing the incoming range. Then 'would follow the. respective, wharves and jetties a.s required to meet the development of the port. Concurrently with this work would he the extension of the breakwater eastward—firstly a.s a protecting arm to tho inner chamber and later to enclose the second chamber. The second chamber would be developed as indicated or desired at the time of construction and concurrently with this would be -the further extension eastward of the main breakwater and tiie inner breakwater from the Kaiti beach and ultimately the enclosure ol the outer chamber and its protecting arm. The foregoing lias outlined tho ultimate developments within the, range of the scheme and the work necessary to give relief at the earliest possible moment, together with further extensions essential to meet present-day demands. Detailed designs have not yet been completed therefore detailed estimates are not available, but, tentative designs have been prepared and rough estimates made of which the following may bo regarded as close approximationsr— The requisite, operations to give early relief arc estimated to cost £280,000. This sunt covers the diversion of the river, the construction of the training walls in reinforced concrete sheeting, and dredging of the cut to 12ft. The repairs, renewals, and strengthening of the wharves on tiie Kaiti side, together with provision of necessary depth of water alongside. The removals of existing sheds and re-erection on the Kaiti side ; the erection of a railway bridge adjoining the Kaiti bridge a the establishment. of railway facilities to the Kaiti wharves with necessary alterations to present railway system: the construction of an improved slipway and demolition of the existing one. The, provision of a channel with 12ft of water at low water and subsequent increase in depth to 18ft. ’lhe additional expenditure required to provide facilities to cope with presentda v demands on the part is estimated at* £40.000, and covers the construction of the 1000 ft of berthage between the Board’s workshop and the inner end of the breakwater, with 18ft of water alongside. The breakwater protection necessary to the

works described above, and which includes the extension of the existing breakwater and the construction of the breakwater from the sea side of the entrance ,working westward for •such distance as is considered necessary, is estimated to cost £280,000. ' The main point in this portion of too recommendation is to carry out at the present only the works abso- i lately necessary to afford aeeommo- j daiion for vessels desirous of using the port and to develop thereafter as may, be found, requisite. In this respect it! is considered that the extension ol j the existing breakwater and the con- j struction ol the enter portion of the section on the sea side of the entrance (leaving an entrance of 450 ft) will give the protection necessary to j the first portion of the scheme. Tho j remaining portion of tho breakwater I could be dealt with as, when neces- ] sury, having the experience of tho new conditions to guide one as to what will he required as protection to the further internal developments. 1 Plant and contingencies might be | estimated at, say, £IOO,OOO to £150,-j 000. As a further extension, and for i the accommodation of smaller craft, the area between tho Kaiti bridge and J the first bend of the wharf on the Kaiti side of the river, and from the river towards the roadway, can be developed and there provide an additional 2000 ft of berth age, with a j

depth of water of sav, left to 18fl. This could he carried out at any time during the general development of the port '-its desired. With reference to tho request received from the Waikanae Beach Society that the bench, ho as littio disturbed as possible, this could be met by bringing the river diversion close up to the present groyne and parallel thereto. Hovevci, this would cause, the loss of nine out of the, ten berths on the west side of the inner area and would reduce the effectiveness of the scheme by that, amount. This cannot he recommended as it means tho loss of the best berthages for overseas vessels.” The chairman said that the report was very clear arid concise free from all frills. Anyone coud grasp the report and the Engineer was to j ho. congratulated upon having prepared so good a document. The part of the report with which they were most interested was that which dealt with the immediate purpose of the scheme. The resolution he was going to move was that the report be adopted insofar as it applied to immediate works embracing the construction of the breakwaters and those parts listed under the heads of 1,2, 3, 4, and 5. The other works were not urgent, and did not concern the Board at the. present time. Dr. Collins complained that if tim Chairman moved in the direction indicated he would prevent them from considering or adopting the whole of tho report which was put before them for the purpose of being adopted in its entirety. The chairman was out of order, and should move the adoption of the whole of the report. The chairman then moved that the Engineer’s report be received and adopted. Dr. Collins said that before seconding tho report, lie wanted to know whether it would bind them down to a previous resolution of the Board to do the work by day labor. ’ T'lio chairman said that it would not so bind them. Dr. Collins: Very well, then, L second the motion. t Mr. Tombleson said that according to tho report, it would cost them perilously near the £7(30,000, and then they would not have their single chamber harbor which had lice a promised them. To carry out tho rest of the breakwater, it would cost, so the Engineer bad said, nearly another quarter of a million. That < would bring the cost up to over £OOO,OOO. During the election campaign he had often asked, for Mr. Reynolds’ figures to be checked, and i now they found tint, even after allowing for less cost of construction < due to cheaper cement tile com of the single chamber Jiarbor would be '■ very near the whole one million. There was no provision in the report for a wall to keep the sand out of ( the river, which would be necessary, 1 nor was there anything allowed for 1 a sufficient overlap in the breakwater J which was considered essential by the 1 harbormaster. The chairman had pro- 1 rniseef the single chamber harbor for f £7SO,(MX), and now it was evident i that it would cost a million. What 1 was thy chairman going to do about I it ? i

Air. C. H.-Williams said that he was going to oppose tho adoption of tho report, but at tho same time, he wanted to say that it was a great deal to have to make up their minds in a couple of hours, and either adopt it or reject it. Tie thought they should hold a special meeting in ton days’ time to consider it. They had to remember that only a short time ago they had adopted a similar report from another engineer for tile erection of a • harbor at a cost of £750,000. Now they were being asked to adopt a report which was going to build the harbor, not for £750,000, but nearly £1,000.000. Tho ratepayers had been promised an article for a certain price, and it now appeared that they were not going to get it. He was in favor of the Kaiti diversion scheme, and lie wanted to differ from the Engineer’s condemnation of that scheme. It was based on evidence acquired by means of a 2in. bore. Now some of them had made a boro

Dr. Collins: I rise to a point ol order. Mr. Williams’ remarks are not relevant to the motion. . The chairman asked members not to inject. Dr. Collins: Any member has a right to interject when he sees red herrings being drawn across the path. A member : Rubbish ! *

Continuing, Mr. Williams said that for the expenditure of £280,000 they would get. only a very incommodious harbor, which would not ho satisfactory, and would not be range free. Tho report, 'said Mr. Williams, did not deal with tht financial side ot the matter at. all. When the financial position was being put before tho ratepayers, two fallacious statements were made. One was that the harbor could be maintained for £7OOO a year, and further it had been said that it would only lie necessary to levy £22,000 a year in rates. The experience in other places was to the effect that- it would cost much more than £22,000 to maintain a harbor of this description. Tht chairman: That £7OOO is only fur half a year. Mr. Williams then contended that it would be necessary to levy a much greater rate than £22,000. The second fallacy was that the revenue would go on increasing every year. They had to-remember that all the land had been occupied, and that tho revenuq could not be expected to continue increasing. Tho chairman explained that it had been clearly stated nil along that Mr. Reynolds’ scheme would be submitted to a competent engineer for revisum. Mr. T. Corson said he wished to move an amendment to .! •> effect that they go on with the cons is'i.C ion of those works embodied in the five ; points mentioned by tho chairman. They did not hope in their life-times to see the whole harbor completed, but they wanted relief now. Members pointed out that the amendment was embodied in the mo- i tion. Mr. Birrell appealed for action, and desired members to stop working at cross purposes. He considered it was a very good report, very clear, and very concise, and let them go ahead and get out of the mess they t were in now. Thev had not tied them- : selves to Reynolds’ scheme. Tim public were looking anxiously forwnut to what they were doing {bat day,

and if there was any hesitation now, they would be putting hack the hands of the clock. Air. T. Todd said that he was very much in favor of going ahead now and adopting the whole of the report. The town was losing £IOO,OOO a year now through its lack of harbor facilities. They should take their coats off and get into it straight auav.

Mr. I. Mirficld supported glie adoption of the report, saying that they could not do anything better. Air. it. Dyrnock said that they should adopt the report, They had gone to a lot of trouble in getting an engineer and they should do what lie recommended. Dr. Collins supported the motion but said that he wanted first to know how far the Board was going to kc|i faith with the ratepayers, and further how far the adoption of the report was going to commit them as a Board. They had to remember that they had to give tho public a harbor giving the greatest amount of it lief at the least cost. With t.ie exi option of Alembers Williams and Tombleson the members present bad all shared in adopting the report in 1921, of Air. Reynolds. They, were morally .bound to deal with the matter as soon as possible, because they had given their promise to the ratepayers. 'The only way to increase the value of the town was to give it a harbor. “Mow,” said Dr. Collins. “ 1 am going to deal with Air. Williams.” Voices: Hear, hear! Cr. SheiTiitt: Don’t he too hard on him!

Dr. Collins said that they all respected Air. Williams in liis steadfast adherence to his opinion which was known to he opposed lo the Board. They all knew that they could never deflect his opinion wrong and all as it was. But they could not respect Air. Williams foi Ins recommendation to defer consideration of the report for ten days, when ho had said that he was going -to Veto’ against the report. Mr. Williams had said that Air. Reynolds was inaccurate in his estimates, but that was on the basis of tho present Engineer’s report. AJr. Williams had no right to asume that the one was right and the other .wrong, both were only approximate. Dr, Collins took exception to Air. Williams’ inference that the members had gone around the country misleading the ratepayers. All the members who had spoken at the various meetings had said only that they were committed to was the building of an outer harbor, and that Reynolds’ scheme was going to lie submitted to an engineer for consideration. Air. Williams: I presume I have a right to reply to this. Dr. Collins seems to he making a. personal attack ini me.. Dr. Coffins denied that he whs making an attack oil anyone. He was merely refuting an attack made on tho majority of tho members ot the Board. AH. Wiliams had said that the Engineer’s scheme would give them an incommodious harbor, not free from range and therefore unsafe. It seemed to him that Air. Williams’ claim was rather presumptions. The declared policy of the Board was to construct a harbor to give the greatest amount of relief at the least cost.

Air. Tombleson: At £750,000. Dr. Collins; Yes, at £750,000; but lias it penetrated your iiitolligeuee vet that bad wo gone on with the Awapuni scheme, it would have cost us £2,000,000 ? Air. Siierratt: Is there any time limit for speakers? Dr. Collins: No; and I would stonewall till morning if 1 thought the scheme was.going to he turned down. Air. Siierratt: You wouldn’t do it if I were running tha meeting. Dr. Collins: But you’re not in the chair, thank God! Continuing, Dr. Collins said that the Engineer’s report embodied all the points they were looking for and it would tie immoral if the Board delayed five minutes unnecessarily in carrying out the work. Air. Williams, in making a personal statement, said that he never imputed that any member of tho Board bad consciously made an untrue statement, but" be eonvended that members had been misled. He bad never said anything which was not fair criticism. His statement that Air. Reynolds was wrong was only his expression of opinion, and he still believed that tho estimate was wrong. The Engineer bad admitted that the proposed harbor would not bo free from range, and therefore it must be unsafe, however little. Why should lie not he allowed to state his opinions ? Mr. Tombleson: BecattsA 'i does not agree with Dr. Collins. Mr. Siierratt said that the public would lie disappointed with the report. 'They had been led to believe

j at tiro poll campaign that they were ( going to get a great deal more titan , was turning cut. .It was obvious that Air. Reynolds’ estimates were ineor- , root. He was going to oppose the motion on the ground that he wanted I Air. Williams to have an opportunity > to talk with the Engineer about the Haiti scheme and also because it was , not apparent from the report, how much the harbor was going to cost i or when it would bo finished. Air. T. Corson, said that he v. as very surprised to' see that Air. Siierratt was now opposing tho scheme since he had always spoken in favor or a harbor. Now when he was given ail opportunity of supporting a report which would give thorn one, ho was opposing it. Air. G. Witters supported the adoption. He was pleased to learn, on the assurance of the chairman that they could adopt the scheme and still keep faith with the ratepayers. Air. A. H. Wallis in speaking in favor of the report, said that they had never bound themselves to Reynolds’ scheme, but only to suc-li r. scheme ns a qualified engineer would recommend. If they kept on as they j were they would never have n har- | bor. He -hoped the Board would go I on with tho work, j The chairman said that he was a ) little disappointed that the Board . was not unanimous in supporting I the scheme. They had never broken i faith with the ratepayers because it was only when they * had told tho ratepayers that Reynolds’ schema would be checked by' a competent engineer that they had ‘gained the support which carried the poll. The Engineer had gone very thoroughly , into the scheme proposed, and Tiad 1 evolved one which, in the chairman’s j opinion, would meet the requirements ! of Gisborne for many rears to come.

He wanted to point out- that the area of the proposed harbor was as great as that in Reynolds’ plan, and ik connection with the Kaiti diversion scheme, it should he pointed out that it would cost £270,000 tc do that as against £280.000 for diversion under the'new scheme. He could j not- understand how members could oppose such a progressive policy. ■ He put the motion to the meeting, and it was carried by 9 votes to 3, ; the dissentients being Messrs, j Tombleson. Williams, and Slierratt. ! Mr. Williams: Now that the report ! is adopted, all opposition to it on my part vanishes. I hope the scheme j will be a thorough success. Mr. Slierratt: The same with me. The chairman then moved that the Board authorise tbe commencement of those works mentioned under the headings of 1,2, 3. 4, and s,in the report. Mr. T. Corson seconded the motion. Dr. Collin's wanted to know if this would commit them to a policy of day labor. The chairman' said he - would deal with that later. The motion was carried. The chairman then moved ‘ t'-et the whole of. the work =o dcci-U-ri upon except the building o" bridge, he undertaken hr dm- ’-h-T.

In speaking to the motion, the chairman said that he did not wish to condemn the contract system, and there was nothing to stop them reverting to contract if day labor were found to be unsatisfactory. They Had, however, to remember that they had to work the port while the work was in progress, and they could do that better under tlie da.y labor system then under contract. At Timaru, they had started under contract, but had Intel to finish up by day labor. The Engineer had given his statement that ho was well versed in doing work by day labor, and it was only right they should give their Engineer an opportunity ; or showing what iie could do. If he ; did not come up to expectations, I they could revert to the other method. Take, for example, the opening up of a quarry in which tlier.e was • a big risk, perhaps. A contractor would need to make a big allowance ; for contingencies, and the Board was j better able to bear tneh risks than j a private contractor. The Board could j not dictate to a contractor exactly ! what lie was going to do; ho would i want to have a free hand. He denied , the assertion that he had said that lit would not be possible to get :i ! contractor 10 wive a price for the j construction of the whole harbor. He had never had any such thing in his mind. There were plenty of men "'ho would do such a work. What he had said was that thev could not get any contractor to take on the building of the breakwater for a setestimate, because once they started putting stone into the sea, they never knew what was going to turn up. He advocated, therefore, the carrying out of the work by day I labor, which would also save time. I The Engineer had promised them iei lief in eighteen months, and if they I let one contract it would be that j time before the work was started. Was it not worth it to get relief in that time, even if it cost them a lit tie more? Then they would hate an \nsset of perhaps £20,000 in the plant winch they could hand over when the next stage of works was decided upon. He hoped that they would vote for progress and immediate-) _action by means of doing the work by day labor. Air. Corson seconded the motion. Dr. Collins oposecl the motion, and moved as an amendment “that the Board should call for tenders for the entire undertaking and commence the work as soon as practicable.”

In speaking to the motion, lie said lie knew lie was lighting a losing light, but he wanted to express las opinion. In the first place, were the public entitled lo know what the work was going to cost? It was the duty of the Engineer to point out to the Board what the work was going to cost in every detail, and this was not possible under day labor. The chairman had said that it- would be impossible to get a contractor to give a fixed c.stiiiiate for the breakwater except at a prohibitive cost, hut why should it he more prohibitive under contract than by day labor? Dealing with' tlie cost of plant, iie said that when a work was done by day labor, plant hail to be bought before starting, and could the chairman get the public to believe that the Board could buy that plain as advantageously as could men accustomed to the building of harbors? Could the work be done earlier or better by day labor than by contract? The work could be started, even under day labor, only when they iiail got the money, when they had got the plant, anil when they got all the material oil the ground, liven under the best conditions, it would he only a few months later in starting by a contract than by day labor.

As againsf that, under contract they would know exactly what tho • work was going Lo cost, and iL mould be done cheaper and quicker. Their Engineer might be an authority on day labor, but bo had no experience of day labor in New Zealand or in Gisborne, where the facilities were not the same as in Australia. Tho risk of opening up quarries would liut he very great when a contractor, who would be a thoroughly experienced man. took tlie work on. Ho was opposed to day labor, but was prepared to support the chairman if there had been a reasonable amount of contract work involved. Now. however, it was evident ithat only the ,bridge- was to bo let by contract. Air. J. Tombleson seconded tho amendment.

Air. R. At. Birrell said that it resolved itself into a question of faith in their Engineer, who should be able to do the work in New Zealand as well as lie did it -in Australia. Dr. Collins had spoken a lot about what the public wanted, hut what the public wanted was to get a start made as soon as possible. 1 Dr. ■Collins had gone into the matter with great detail and sometimes Air. Birrell thought that the Doctor should he in the Engineer’s place. Air. Siierratt agreed that much of the work would have to be (lone by day labor, but lie moved in a furtor amendment that the railway to the quarry, two sections of the breakwater, and the getting of the stone after the quarry was opened, be dene by contract.

Air. AY titers opposed Dr. Collins’ amendment, saying that day labor was only a matter of proper supervision and he had sufficient faith in the Engineer to believe that lie could handle the job. Air. T. Todd supported, the chairman’s motion and opposed' Dr. Collins’ amendment. Air. Williams also opposed the Doctor’s amendment. Dr. Collins’ amendment was then put to the meeting and lost, Ale.ssrs. H. D. Dvmock, Tombleson and Dr - . Collins voting in favor of it. Air. Sherratt’s amendment was thou placed before the meeting for consideration, Air. Dvmock seconding it. The chairman explained that if they did tho quarry work by day labor. they could have it opened up hv the time they called tenders. The Engineer had his eye on most of the plant necessary which could bo obtained cheaply. Very few contractors had such plant as they required. Air. Wittprs considered they should leave the matter to the discretion of tbe Engineer, who in this case was putting himself in tho hands of a contractor.

The chairman remarked ih.it tie Board could buy plant cheaper than a contractor because they could pay , cash for it. Mr. I. Mirfield opposed the amendment, citing the case of Timaru, where the Board had been able to quarry and deposit the .stone cheaper than any contractor. • The amendment was then put to tile meeting and lost bv seven votes to five. Dr. Collins then moved as an amendment that the Board let the work of putting the line into the' , quarry by contract. 1 The amendment lapsed for want of a seconder. Mr. Wallis said that they were already hound by a resolution adopting tho principle of day labor, b it stating that contracts would he Ivt where possible. The chairman’s motion was then put and carried by seven votes to five, those voting against the motion being Messrs. Tombleson. Dymock, Slmrratt. Williams, and Dr. Collins. The chairman then moved that the Engineer should proceed to Sydney where ho believed that necessary plant could be obtained. This was carried. It was further decided on the motion of the chairman, seconded by Mr. T. Todcl, that the assistant on- ; gmeer. Mr. Jack, should ho np- ! pointed mechanical engineer to inspect. rrf! lock after pla: ‘ ■■ i-.ii-v ; of £450 per • nulaa. A resolution was passed author!'- ] ing tho Board to raise £50.000 for ! immediate use, and that power ho j sought to pnv 64 per cent on it.

A committee comprising Messrs. Mirfield, Corson. Quirk. Holdsworth, Sherratt. and Witters was set up to deal with the purchase of plant. Mr. Mirfield urged the necessity of setting up a working committee, but the matter was deferred.