THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1925. AGAIN, THE TWO HARBOURS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVI, Issue 12, 28 December 1925, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1925. AGAIN, THE TWO HARBOURS.

Recognising that the middle of a holiday season is far troni being the best time at which to attempt arousing, or even reviving, individual interest in a matter of most serious public concern, it had not been our intention to return to the harbour question until that season was over. However, it is obviously necessary, in order to avoid false impressions becoming crystallised, that a reply should at once be given to what our Napier morning contemporary has to say to-day on what was said here last Wednesday. In the first place, there is nothing inevitable for us to accept. So far as present reliable expert advice goes the final condemnation of the Hawke’s Bay district to a harbour at which no such thing as a port can ever be instituted seems entirely evitable by giving consideration to the institution of the Inner Harbour in conjunction with a comprehensive scheme of reclamation for the Board’s 3000-acrc estate lying immediately around it. That aspect of the case, in the ultimate issue the most important of all, our contemporary again studiously and conveniently avoids, though specifically invited to discuss it. In the next place, we are kicking up against no pricks, for there is no such acuteness in the opposition to our own points as makes the phrase applicable. What we certainly are , kicking up against is the waterlogged indifference, if no worse, to the big eventual destiny of the district as contrasted with what are regarded, and we believe wrongly regarded, as the immediate interests of its chief town. Only a decision reached after thorough examination of the reclamation problem in its relation to harbour construction can justify a final choice between the two harbour schemes, each of which, as the Board has been advised, is thoroughly practicable, not merely “possible” as the morning paper puts it in its reference to the Inner Harbour. This is, of course, a somewhat wearisome reiteration to which we are forced because both Napier papers persistently refuse (■ven to approach the main subject from ibis, for Hawke’s Bay. by far ill.* ni’i .l important point «•!' view.

With regard to our contemporary’s suggestion that we have made .a statement capable of misinterpretation, we can only assume that this has reference to the strictly limited character of the berthage accommodation that can ultimately be provided at the Outer Harbour. If this be the case, then it is because Messrs Cullen and Keele’s reports are, in this respect, capable of misinterpretation, for we have done no more than quote their own ! words. Even if the plans —admittedly not as yet seen by us- - accompanying the later report indicate the possibility of providing further accommodation beyond that for which they have furnished estimates of costs, still, on our contemporary’s own showing, this is “strictly limited.” Beyond this —and, again, a point that is avoided —to provide that strictly limited accommodation will involve the demolition of a very material and costly item in the presently contemplated Outer Harbour scheme and its reconstruction elsewhere. AVhy does our contemporary not give its readers this information? Nothing of this kind is involved in the expansion of the Inner Harbour berthage to a point that would make the port of Napier a worthy rival to any port as at present existing in the Dominion. There is thus, on this count, no mistake for us to admit, and so we have admitted, and admit, none. Then, it is said this morning that we “would appear to have fallen into another mistake.” That presumed mistake it puts as follows :—

“They [the Tribune] say that the engineers’ Outer Harbour scheme gives only 1100 feet of wharf accommodation, while the Inner Harbour scheme gives 2600 feet. It is difficult to see how this could be so, for the engineers were asked to give the same facilities in each case. The explanation is that they [the Tribune] have omitted to take account of the Glasgow wharf in the Outer Harbour scheme, which brings the accommodation it affords nn to the same figure as the Inner Harbour.”

What we did say, and what we still say, subject to any possible explanation the Australian engineers may have to give, was : —

“While the limited Inner Harbour scheme as now discussed by Messrs Cullen and Keele provides 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 coastal and intercolonial snipping at present accommodated at ihc 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 rre do not see how.”

That explanation, in all good faith and sincerity, we still await. In short, what we ask is: Does 2.600 feet of Inner Harbour quay provide only as much new berthage accommodation as 1.278 feet of Breakwater pier? If. foot for foot, quay and pier will provide accommodation for the same amount of shipping, then it will take the two piers to equal the quay, and the estimates show that they will cost more, not less than it to establish.