THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1925. CULLEN AND KEELE’S REPORT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 9, 22 December 1925, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1925. CULLEN AND KEELE’S REPORT.

L p to the time of wilting we have been unable to obtain any official information as to the proceedings at yesterday’s meeting of the Napier Harbour Board. As it was held in committee, the secretary does not feel himself at liberty, without express authority, to say anything about it, while the chairman is not at the moment available for reference. All that can so far be gathered is that Messrs Cullen and Keele’s supplementary report is to bo fully considered at the Board's next ordinary monthly meeting, which falls for 12th January. At that meeting, no doubt, an attemptwill be made io hustle members to a final decision in favour of the immediate adoption of the Australian engineers’ recommendation with respect to the Outer Harbour. There is thus, having regard to the intervening holidays, no time to be lost by those who are desirous of having the matter intelligently and dispassionately discussed in all its many aspects, not merely as an engineering proposition having no regard to any consideration other than those of present expenditure on construction and future cost of maintenance.

It is made very obvious from the treatment of the report by the Napier press—devoted, of course, specially to the interests of their own town—to carry the public off its feet by emphasizing only what Messrs Cullen and Keele have to : say that is favourable to the Breakwater and keeping as much as possible out of sight what is said in its disfavour, at the same time, of course, making as little as possible of what is said for the Inner Harbour. The “scare” subheadings that the evening paper has quite unjustifiably scattered through their reproduction of the report itself are in themselves quite suffi- ■ cient evidence of this. The manifest | object is to bamboozle its readers, ; instead of presenting the report to them as it came from its authors’ hands and thus enabling them to exercise an unbiased judgment. That, however, is a trick whose influence should be considerably discounted by the frequency with which they have been misguided by it in the past. In this connection j we would ourselves hasten to correct ' any misimpression that may have I been created by <a slip, due to hasty reading, in one line of our own main heading to the report yesterday, which should have read “difficult,” not “impossible of extension” in reference to the Outer Harbour. For ourselves to-day, with only limited space at command, wc must be content to draw attention to a few of the points that require ' consideration and, some of them, further elucidation. In the first place, while the limited Inner Harbour scheme as now discussed by Messrs Cullen and Keele pro- i vines for 2,600 feet of entirely new | berthage in addition to that now existing at both harbours, that for the Outer Harbour provides for only some 1.100 feet, or, taking the width as well as the length of the proposed new pier, at most 1,278 feet. To provide the same additional berthage at the Breakwater as at the Inner Harbour would necessitate the erection of a second new pier, and this would bring the initial respective costs of the two schemes to about the same figure, any difference being in favour of the Inner Harbour. What is to become of the coaslal and intercolonial shipping at present accommodated at the Breakwater if the whole berthage space of the present Glasgow Wharf and single new pier that is now to be counted upon is occupied by the four liners in contemplation? Possibly this is capable of explanation, but, we must confess, at the moment we do not see how. Then, again, a great deal is being ' macle of Messrs Cullen and Keele’s ! admission that shipmasters may i prefer the Outer Harbour as being '

easier of entrance in stormy weather, though nothing is said of their testimony to the safety of the Inner Harbour entrance. No mention, moreover, is made of the fact that one of the chief things to be considered is not ease getting to the wharf, but the ease with which the larger vessels can in such weather get away from the Breakwater when it becomes dangerous for them to remain at their berths there. This is a condition that has occurred not once but dozens of times, a fact with which the Australian engineers have, probably not been macle acquainted. The construction of the mole they propose will doubtless mitigate this danger, but it is matter of notoriety that it arises largely from the break over the structure, which they previously condemned as altogether too low, and to the heavy surge through it. There is nothing to show that this will not continue, and every good reason for believing that it will.

Messrs Cullen and Keele say quite decisively that further accommodation than that in immediate contemplation can be provided at the Breakwater only at heavy additional cost and by destroying the mole now prescribed and rebuilding it elsewhere. They, moreover, indicate clearly that the eventual possibilities in this respect are distinctly limited, while at the Inner Harbour expansion can go on to an extent that would provide for a whole fleet of liners. Then, finally, and possibly most important of all, given your Outer Harbour, where is your port to be built? Reclamation there is a matter quite impracticable except at an entirely prohibitive cost. The only apparent alternative is to put it up on the bluff hill and provide access to it by scaling ladders, organising a corps of returned hill-fighters to do the “wharfies’ ” work. At the Inner Harbour unlimited reclamation is easy and cheap, ana space for an up-to-date port can be provided at small trouble and little expense, with big revenue returns in assured and early prospect. “What will you, then my masters?”