Harbour Commission

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 201, 9 August 1927, Page 5

Harbour Commission

To-day’i Proceedings. CHAIRMAN'S CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED. WEATHER AND BERTHINGS AT BREAKWATER. The cross-examination of the chairman of the Napier Harbour Board. Mr 4*. E, Jull. whose giving of evidence occupied the Commission from Friday morning until yesterday afternoon, was continued this morning by Mr H. B. Lusk, who appeared for the Marine Department Mr Lusk: You will agree that since 1884 there have been several report* of engineers advocating the Breakwater?—Yes. The Breakwater originally did not have an apron?—No. It is common ground that the Breakwater is npt completed?—Completed to a greater length than the original design. In its unfinished state has it not been a complete success? —No. Yesterday, when_ vou criticised Messrs Cullen and Keele’s report vou said it made no mention as to whether ships could enter, and if so could thev get out ?—I said that Cuilen and Keele, in heir 1925 reuort. indicated that the Breakwater would be easier of access during bad weather. but thev did not sav whether during bad weather thev would want to leave. When Mr Furkert made his 1921 report certain material was supplied by the officers of the board?—l was in England, but I presume it was. A list of vessels berthed at the Breakwater from 1918 to 1923 shows that 151 in all. drawing over 20 feet, berthed at the Breakwater? —I don't doubt it. The Arahura berthed 388 times, not once missing berthing?—What is her draft? Under 20 feet I suppose. Don’t you consider that a fine oerforipance for an unfinished Breakwater?—The Arahura could have gone into the Inner Harbour just as well. Mr Lusk: I say that it shows a fair result for the money that has been spent—a fair result for the article put up? Mr Jull: Yes, when it is was supposed to cost £197,000. and what did it cost? COUNSEL’S CONDUCT RESENTED. A short argument betwen counsel and witness ensued, when Mr Barton intervened, Mr Jull (to the chairman!: I would like you to appreciate that I am not a delinquent in a police court that I should be lectured bv counsel in this

wav. the chairman: We quite under stand that

Mr Jull: I am quite willing to answer any question put in a gentlemanly way. Mr Lusk: I only intend asking questions, and I onl- want answers to them. Mr Lusk: Did the return r 'ut in showing the various vessels which left the Breakwater come from the harbourmaster?—From the board’s officers.

The harbourmaster should know all about it?—Yes. no doubt, Hawsers were supplied bv the board at the Breakwater, while at the Inner Harbour ships used their own lines. Are vou aware that there were a number of vessels which used the roadstead could have used the Breakwater?—There were a number of intercolonial boats which differ from cargo vessels, which could have worked them.

Is it not a fact ,that a .number could have come into the Breakwater?—Yes. as far as draught is concerned, but that is not the only matter to be considered. Do you not know that vessels have gone alongside to take in water and then gone out to discharge?—l have seen it recorded.

You stated that Mr. Marthant did not consider the question of the Inner Harbour?—He did consider a proposal for the cutting of the sluicing agency of the tidal waters while the proposals adopted by the board retained this agency. His proposals "related to a different kind of Inner Harbour to be constructed outside the eastern mole. Maxwell, Williams and Mason’s report took in the Inner Harbour for consideration?—Yes; it was one of the first. In condemning the Inner Harbour they laid stress on the sand drift?— Yes. Also because of difficulties of navigating the channel ?—Yes. DIVERSION OF TUTAEKURI. Did Cullen and Keele report in 1912 that the Tutaekuri should be diverted ?—Yes The question of the diversion is one for the Rivers Board?—Yes. The work is to cost £9o,ooo?—Yes, but a modified scheme on which they are working is costing £25,000. We have heard a lot about the diversion?—Yes, and it is going on. Over two-thirds of the water is going out to the Waitangi. Have you ever had a request from the harbourmaster for a tug?—No, because it is not an enclosed harbour. Well, would it be wanted in a completed harbour?—Well, Lyttelton has one and that is an enclosed harbour. Their engineer said it was essential. New Plymouth is also trying to get one. You said that Cullen and Keele never made reference to the raising of the Breakwater in their 1925 report?—They were silent on it, such a fact indicating that they had not changed their minds, possibly being of the opinion that the board could not finance such a work. Does it not satisfy you that they did not mention the raising of the Breakwater?—No, they were most implicit on it when they went into it.

What motives do you think actuated these engineers to report like they did?—From opinions gathered from board members, and propaganda by the press, which was virulent at the time, they formed the opinion that the district wanted Mr. Furkert’s Breakwater proposal. Further argument between counsel and witness ended in the chairman asking for Cullen and Keele’s recommendations being read Mr. Lusk: They recommended the I Breakwater as being the best schema?—No, they did not. You attribute motives to these gentlemen*—No. I did not attribute motives at all; they thought that the only harbour that could he got was , Mr. Furkert’s Breakwater proposal.

Do you suggest that Cullen and Keele did not recommend the Breakwater?—Yes, they did express a preference for the Breakwater harbour and recommended accordingly, but that does not imply any condemnation of the Inner Harbour as recommended in their previous report. You think that engineers of repute would base their recommendations as you shggest?—They hav e not altered their opinions on the merits of the harbours.

' The Marine Department had full knowledge regarding the embankment and could not now complain of what happened?—No. The Minister of Marine was not Minister of Public Works when the embankment contract was signed. You will admit your mistake in saying he was?—Yes, but the engineer-in-chief was acting for both departments. . EMBANKMENT SCHEME. Cullen and Keele altered the schema for the embankment?—No. Everyuuug was done by the Public Works Department. The chairman: Is the embankment there now the same as they suggested?—No, it is further back and much larger, carrying the road and railway. Their embankment was just for harbour service. You have placed a simple breastwork with water up to 20 feet in substitution tor a fully equipped wharf as designed by Cullen and Keele and has it not cost as much to do as Cullen and Keele’s estimate for a proper work?—No, because al Estimates for work had of recent years been greatly exceeded. * Is it not a fact that the way West Quay has been constructed it could not be deepened beyond 20 feet?— That is so, but it is quite adequate tor what it was required for. There was no need to put down a 34 feet berthage tor vessels drawing 17 feet. It was purely intended for the smaller draught vessels. Was it because you could not drive the piles?—No, because of the type. The piles were driven all right. Have you been working to Cullen ahd Keele’s scheme?—Yes, with variatous in types for different pails. The Empowering Bill was passed in 1914. Can you tell us what has been done with tne Inner Harbour? —We did not take a poll until 1920 owing to the war which was followed by a severe slump. The next problem was dealing with the dredging. Cullen and Keele were .proposing an electric ally driven dredge. Mr Lusk: You started the embankment in 1916? —Our revenue went to pieces, going down to £37 000 per annum. What have you got?—The embankment, the robuiiuiug of Nelson and West Quay, and a portion of the deepening of the channel in places down to 34 feet. A contract has been let for the construction of the eastern mole which work is now started. MR FURKERT’S REPORT. That was done in the face of Mr Furkert’s report?—Not in the face at all, but with his approval aud by Or der-in-Council. It was quite a different type to the original one. Both Nelson aud West Quay are replacements?—They are of greater depth and are of quite a different type. Y'ou have spent £168.000 on it?— Yes, but have £30,000 worth of material on hand, and also plant. To the chairman! It also includes the cost of the embankment.

Mr Lusk: You objected to Mr Furkert stating that thousands of pounds had been diverted from the Breakwater loan, and 'his remarks about the diversion- of moneys?—What I said was that he was hard pressed for criticism at the time. Counsel then read a note received from the bord’s office stating that moneys had been wrongly debited to the Breakwater loan.

Witness: That was before my time. Mr Furkert alluded to some money taken from the Breakwater loan in 1889 which he did not mention for reclamation. He was hard pressed for criticism of this board when he went back to 1889, which matter does not concern the present board. You found fault with Mr Furkert for saying that Maxwell Williams and Mason’s report was not meeting with the approval of a section of the public and the board—is that not correct!—Yes, but it was not a fair way of putting it. He should have said that the public had turned it uown. You complain of Mr Furkert’s remarks regarding structures getting out of repairs. Is it not a fact tuat they were out of repairs for years?— Yes, for years, they being nursed with the view of the change that was likely to take place regarding the harbour. t Mr Gray: There was a storm in 1924 that did damage. Mr Lusk: And it finished the p'ers and breastwork off.

Witness: Oh, no, it didn’t. Mr Lusk: It was not suggested in 1912 to Cullen and Keele that the channel should be widened on the western side!—No.

You object to Mr Furkert saying that the Whakariri dredged patch had filled up considerably within a few months? —Yes. Wasn’t it correct?—No. It was a distinctly unfair way of putting it in view of the reports available.

It necessity arose there would be no difficulty in widening the Glasgow wharf?—No, but it had nnt been provided for and the annual cost would have therefore to lie charged against the Breakwater. Do you know that one of the largest oil companies has declined the board’s terms and has gone to Hastings to put up their tanks and receive their supplies from Wellington?—As you put it it is not correct. The board had a proposal from a company who did not propose to bring oil by tankers and wanted to take waggons over the board's wharf. The board agreed to permit the use of their wharf provided that they paid the same rate as oil over the wharf coming from the tankers. NEVER IN THE AIR. All this was done While the harbour question was in the air?—The Inner Harbour has never been in the air. It has for a long time been taking two-thirds of the trade of the port and will continue to do so. Speaking of Mr Pengelly you said he would not allow a man to go on the punt and supervise the boring?— He looked upon ft as a reflection on his integrity!—He said so. Have you any doubt about him?— Yes|l have—about his conclusions. In a repoit made on April 8 by Mrl’engelly he said, with regard to bores to channel at Inner Harbour that although it is notniy place to choose

bore sights and the boring is difficult I would advise the putting down of a few more bores near the entrance as owing to indications I strongly suspect a reef in the immedi ate vicinity. That statement came out just before the elections in 1925, having no doubt some influence on the minds of the electors. My comment is that Mr Fengelly, as well as being a rock borer, was posing as a rock diviner, as after the elcctipis no further indications of the reef alleged were made. Your suggestion is that he put in that repoit for election purposes? — To be quite frank I think he was got at and knowing the people we had to' deal with I would not put it past them. "

He made the borings in 1925. Have you taken steps to see if they were correct?—The plant was taken away. Do you suggest that" the Commission should not be guided by the borings taken?—if the Commission desires, the board would be willing to have any borings taken if suitable plant could be made available. 1 understand that it was intended to provide accommodation for four vessels in a modified scheme for botli harbours?—Yes, and in each case for other vessels that require accommodation.

That is not the point?—The whole point-

1 presume that if sheds were provided at the Breakwater there should be.no reason why cargo could ■noi, be handled the same as at the Inner Harbour ?—Because it would, not be practicable, and they would still have to be hauled. Why could it not be so?— Well, you would soon have rafferty rules there. What have you got now then ?—We have got them going very smoothly. In reply to the chairman Mr Jull explained that haulage beyond the Inner Harbour would be charged for by the Railway Department at its usual rates of charges. It could not be expected that Napier would receive any preferential treatment on other ports from that Department. IMPORTANT MATTER. Mr. Lusk: You said that you were making a loss of 2/8 per ton for cargo handled at the Breakwater?—l said that on cargo going through the sheds out of the 4/- charge per ton we were paying, 2/8, making that much less profit. There is very little in that?—Oh, isn’t there. It is an Important matter. Is it not a fact that the alterations in berthages recently made are making up for any loss incurred?— No, because the adjusted charges amount to only £lOO of the amounts collected previously. Won't these new rates have the effect of driving vessels out into the Roadstead, and wasn’t it intended for that purpose?—No, our intention was to remedy anomalies in regard to tonnage per trip. A uniform charge of 3d per ton for the first day is now imposed. It would not have the effect of driving vessels into the Roadstead and further it is not the policy of the board when revising the charges to make them do so. The difference of a large vessel at the Breakwater was £7O for three days, and £23 for the Roadstead?— That may be so. With regard to reclamation at the port, do you suggest that if -the ponds were reclaimed they would be used as residential areas?—l certainly do. It occupies the best positions in Napier and is warmer.