Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE ENGINEER’S ADVICE.

On the other hand it is amusing to ‘ see the anxious efforts made by! the old Breakwater Party to find ; something in Mr. Ferguson’s re-: marks to the Board which may be j turned to account. Mr. Ferguson. , however, gave them little ground , to work on. The most that can be, said is that he did not declare him- ’ self a straight-out advocate of the ! inner harbour, neither did he open-; ly condemn the breakwater. As we { stated yesterday. Mr. Ferguson; definitely declined to give engin-! curing advice or express an opinion i as to the merits or demerits of the i rival harbour proposals before the people. His visit was the direct ; outcome of the Harbour League’s campaign. The people were given the promise that the League’s can-; didates would pledge themselves to . have a thorough investigation made : of the harbour question and Mr. Ferguson has given us his experi-; enced advice as to how this work! should be undertaken. But so far as the inner harbour advocates are concerned there is no wavering in , belief that Mr. Nelson’s proposals' should be carried through. On the other hand there is no desire to force public opinion. The League ; has been open and straightforward i

with the people and the policy of investigation now being followed will abundantly indicate their action. It is positively absurd to hold that because- Air. Ferguson suggests dredging of the channel that he supports the “three engineers” in their objection to the inner harbour. He merely accepted this as an objection raised and suggests a’dredging test as the best way to remove all doubt. His other advice also goes to show the Board the best method of procedure, but certainly in no way whatever does he detract from the merits of the inner harbour scheme. On the contrary, we find that in his reply to Air. Niven as to the design of the breakwater harbour he left little doubt in the minds of his audience that the accommodation proposed was not adequate for the big ocean liners which it is hoped would visit the port. However,, we do not wish to raise a critical attitude, but merely so far as is possible to coun- ; teract any misrepresentation of the , position.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBTRIB19110721.2.36

Bibliographic details

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 184, 21 July 1911, Page 4

Word Count
378

THE ENGINEER’S ADVICE. Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 184, 21 July 1911, Page 4

THE ENGINEER’S ADVICE. Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 184, 21 July 1911, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert