Harbour Commission

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 201, 9 August 1927, Page 8

Harbour Commission

MR. JULL CONCLUDES HIS EVIDENCE. CROSS-EXAMINATION OPENS. Continuing his evidence yesterday afternoon before tire Harbour Coinmission, Mr. A. E. Jull, chairman of the Napier Harbour Board, said that there was also an area ot 28 acres which was yet to be fully reclaimed, and loading included in the £25,000 proposed loan. The suggestion was to make 120 residential allotments of it which, at £lO per each per annum would produce £l2OO. and which amount, added co the estimates of the 590-acre block, would give an annual income of £3200 for an outlay of £l6OO. There was a decided reason why the board, which was most anxious to promote reclamation, should proceed. 'lhe board was this year, out of ordinary revenue, spending £B5OO for the construction of West Quay, and out of revenue a further sum of £lOOO Hi reclaiming the. 28 acres, in addition to the £l9OO being spent on that block, bemg money received from the Napier Borough Council, which acquired a small area from the board. In addition to the expenditure of £9500 of ordinary revenue he expected the board’s account to finish on September 30 with a credit balance of £3200. being about £lOOO better than that of last year. After the loans matured at the end of the year there would be, in respect cl payment of sinking fund, £6075 less interest and sinking fund to find. The interest on the t'72.000 ol authorities already raised was included in the present annual interest charge and the board was receiving as interest a fixed deposit in respect to this loan some £3OOO per annum. There would only be interest on the £52.000 of that portion not yet raised, additional interest for an expenditure of £124,000. When the West Quay and the Eastern Mole, now under construction, were completed the cost of maintenance in the Inner Harbour would be cut down fo a small sum, as with the exception of the West Mole, they would be permanent material. THE J .11.0, The J.D.0., which was 36 years old, was costing about £3OOO per annum to run. Mr. Jull here stated that the new labour apd haulage charge would produce £2250 more than this year. After next year's programme of quay construction was done, and before that if loan money were made available lor the work, tlie board could out of revenue, buy a dredge that could do all the i-uiin-tenance work in lieu of J.D.0., excavate the harbour basin and da reclamation without increasing rates on goods and property. ;'.r the end of the second vear sufficient ieim. of quay could be ready when extra revenue from berthage would begin to accrue and revenue from reclamation would be increased. Any lighterage saved because of vessels using the Inner Harbour would be a complete saving, not as a set-off against increased interest chargesIn concluding, witness said he would like to say thax the board bad sought in every way to investigate all matters upon which the various engineers had raised any doubt, such as the investigation ol sand drift, by the taking ot borings and soundings over the harbour area. The question of river diversion was now engaging the attention of the Rivers Board, the work already being partly done. The carrying out of the Inner Har bour work, for which authority by Act of Earllament was already in existence, would be much more expeditious than any other harbour programme, because anv proposal to repeal empowering legislation, particularly legislation acquiesced in by the'people, who would be responsible for the expenditure, would be without precedent in New Zealand and he was sure would evoke the strongest opposition from all local authorities, as it would mean the substitution of bureaucratic control instead of local government control. Any new Act purporting to give authority for any other harbour control would have again to be submitted to the people of the harbour rating district. It was unthinkable to him that any other method could lie adopted. That portion of the district that paid 84 per cent, of the rates had been steadfast in the Inner Harbour pro. posal. despite what engineers had said to the contrary. THE BOARD’S ENDEAVOURS. Mr. Jull submitted to the Commission that the board was endeavouring, and had done, all it could to promote the prosecution of harbour construction in this port in a way that was likely to make for an economical and efficient working of a harbour. Nature had provided the port with an area that could accommodate al) the trade and any extension that could be looked for. The by-product of reclamation would give the board land that would be of enormous value, ultimately giving them considerable strength. All that was needed in the administration of the board was some broadening of vision to be able to place Napier as a port alongside the best harbours in the country. This concluded Mr. .lull’s examination in brief, he having given evidence all dav Friday, Saturday and Monday. CHAIRMAN’S QUESTIONS. Mr. Barton: Mr. Jull has given os the essential facts and a vision of possibility a year ahead of what work might he done. Could the board help us to visualise all that with an estimate of receipts and expenditure at that time? Mr. Gray: One is here for the Breakwater and we can let you have one fon the Inner Harbour. Mr. Barton: Why does the cost of tallying vary at the two wharves? Why is it so much higher at the Breakwater than at the Inner Harhour? Mr. .lull: Because at the Breakwater the board supplies the labour which is included, while no labour is sunnlied at the Inner Harbour. Mr. Barton: Why a special wharf at the Breakwater for oil vessels and not at the Inner Harbour? and also the area for dangerous goods? Mr. Jull: Oil vessels could be isolated more so at the Inner Harbour without disturbing the remainder of shipping, there being more room. The question of the area for dnn•’ernns goods was a matter for the Borough Council. Mr. Barton: Has it been suggested tn set aside the wharf on that side of the Iron Pot as an oil wharf?

Mr. Jull; No. We have not .vet considered setting aside any specific wharf for oil purposes. Mr. Barton: Speaking on the question of reclamation: have the education authorities decided to purchase an area, or was it iust a suggestion ?

Mr. Jull: The Education Board uas decided to purchase three acres and is contemplating securing a further acreage.

Mr. Barton: Would you urge the lack of shed accommodation on Glasgow Wharf as a serious objection to the Outer Harbour in view of the fact that at old-established harbours such ns Melbourne cargo is hauled two miles from the wharves to the sheds. They could instance cargo being taken from the P. and O. wharf to the sheds at Montague. This wharf was used by a number of companies ? Mr. Jull: The point that had to be considered was the relative cost of haulage and the capital cost of building a large wharf and sheds. I don't know the cost of haulage at Port Melbourne but for a similar distance at New Plymouth the Railway Department charges 5/7 per ton. Mr. Barton : What h ave you to say about proposed methods of reclamation ?

Mr. Jull: 1 refer the Commission to reports put in by O. Campbell, G. Nelson, and Hay and Rochlort. The board is carrying out Hay and Rochfort’s method. In one case the board has adopted a method of raising the land by dredging, in the case of the Awatoto block by dewatering. The board, in its scheme for dealing with other reclamation, is lifting the spoil from the Inner Harbour. In reply to a further question Mr ■full said that when he spoke of the board's policy to raise loans without rating powers he did not intend Io exclude what was known as contingent rating powers. MR. LUSK'S EXAMINATION. ' Mr. Lusk then commenced his cross-examination, which was conducted in a manner thut to some ot his audience would scarcely appear to be consonant with the wishes of the Minister ot Murine as he communicated them to the commissioners at the opening of their sitting on Thursday. He referred to Mr. JuU's peroration and asked him what he meant by his reference to the holding ol a statutory election. Witness, stated Zhat he was referring to the contingency of the Commission’s discontinuing the effect of th e 1914 Act. Did I understand you to say that if the Commission found that way, that you would not abide by the decision?—l said that it would have to go before Parliament for special legislation to revoke it. You were putting it to the Commission that it would be no earthly use going against the Act. Something of a threat like?—No; nothing of the sort. I only wanted to place the facts before the Commission. That is begging the question.—l said it would oe substituting bureaucratic government for local government and there would be opposition uy local bodies. And by you.-' Humph! You said that, there were two members elected aho were pledged to the findings of the Commission ?—Yes. They were not pledged to any harbour. ■•'' May 1 ask are you prepared to agree to the report of the Commission? -1 am elected by the ratepayers. i will not mate a pledge. People were asked, to abide uy the decision of an unknown Commission on an unknown order of reference. Nor wul you now?-No. You will stump the county again ? -Yes, and with success. You stood for Parliament without success?—Yes, 1 succeeded for others but not for myself, and it so happens that the gentleman who stood against me is the chairman of the Bills Committee which turned our bill down. ENGINEERS’ REPORTS How many reports were made by marine engineers in favour of a deep water Inner Harbour?—Six. Sir John Coode, Sir John Hawkshaw, MessrsAbernethy, \V. Culcheth, Cullen and Keele, also Bell and Scott. Have you read Sir John Coode’s report ?—Yes. \Vas it not ior a 12 foot harbour scheme?—! dou't remember. 1 put it to you. That 12 foot harbour was not a deep water harbour?—No, but that report was made in 1880. Sir John Hawkshaw and Mr Abernethy judged the competitive designs Yes. They never reported ?—They did better; they reported on all the schemes submitted. Do you know what Mr. Culcheth’s scheme was?—Yes. It was for 20 feet?—Yes Does that not suggest that the English judges did not judge tor a deep harbour?—No- It would have taken in all the boats coming to Napier at that time and for years to follow. Did not the board reject the scheme because it did not give them sufficient depth?-—One reason they guv 0 was that they did not think that the people would vote such a loan. They had made up their minds for a Breakwater and tried to jockey the .people into it. An estimate lor the Breakwater was obtained from the designs for £197,000. This was submitted to two others who built it up to what they thought would be necessary, making it £486,000, and in spite of that the board went on with the Breakwater on the estimate ot £197,000. You know that Mr. Culcheth never saw the place?—No. It would have been a good job if Mr Goodwin had never seen it. Now, in regard to Bell and Scott’s report can you find anything in favour of an Inner Harbour ?—Yes, I quoted from it in my evidence in chief. I don’t think you can find it except in your own consciousness .’—The facts are there. CULLEN A- KEELE'S REPORTS. Now, about Cullen and Keele's report. In 1912 they said it was feasible to build either a Breakwater or an Inner Harbour?—That is so. They did not give any recommendations?—They were not asked for any. Is it not a fact that the board at the time had made up their minds to have an Inner ‘Harbour? —To have investigations made regarding an Inner Harbour, Mr. Nelson's scheme being the basis of it. And the cause of all the mischief?—l don't think you should say that. In 1911 the elections were a contest between an Inner Harbour and an outer harbour?—Anil the Inner Harbour won.

Let me rend the telegram to Cullen and Keele.—Why not read the board’s letter to them first?

Mr. Lusk: 1 will do it my own way. Mr. Gray: My friend is ignoring the board's letter setting out the specific questions. Mr. Lusk: No 1 am not. Mr. Lusk: Now, when Cullen and Keele were reporting they were aware that the board were in favour of an Inner Harbour.—No doubt they were.

Supposing they had wired, back recommending the board?—We would have published it.

And have gone on with the Inner Harbour?—Yes. and would have sent the bill on to Parliament with an adverse report. Cullen and Keele made their report, and afterwards advised that they recommended the Inner Harbour by cable?—Their report showed that, they favoured the Inner Harbour. THE 1925 RECOMMENDATIONS. They went back on their report when they reported in 1925.—N0 they did not. Witness then read Cullen and Keele’s recommendation which recommended the board for one pier which was based upon the smaller initial cost.

Is not that a dear preference for an outer harbour?—No. For the Inner Harbour then?—No. It is not for either. When they reported in 1925 they met the members of the board, and the chairman stated that he had had a chat with Cullen and Keele regarding the requirements. They made a comparison of two things that were not comparable. They kept the Inner Harbour proposals up to the accommodation as stated in their original report for 8 vessels, while in the Breakwater proposal they were only allowing for four ocean liners. What do you think of them?—l wanted to submit to them a set ot questions, but the board would not agree, stating that they had all they wanted. But what do you think of them?— Most competent engineers. They went back on the Inner Harbour?—No. They were under the impression that the board had adopted Mr. Furkert’s Breakwater proposal. THE ROCK BOTTOM QUESTION. Did you give Cullen and Keele the information that the Breakwater bed was half rock? No. 1 did not. Who supplied them then with the information? . The • same persons as supplied information to all other engineers—the board’s officers. They s aid in the absence of reliable information they had to assume certain matters. Their total for dredging for the board in 1912 was for £62,000. Mr. Gray: It has been intimated to me that Mr. Marchant may have supplied the information and quoted from Cullen and Keele's report. Witness quoted from Messrs Maxwell. Williams and Blair Mason which stated that fhe board should be provided with a rock cutter as the rock found in the Bluff was certain to be met in the dredging of the harbour. Mr. Lusk: Doesn’t that refer to only one rock —No, that refers to pinnacles all over the harbour, many of which have since been picked up. Mr, Grav then quoted from Cullen and Keele’e 1912 report as follows: “The contours of the bottom which are shown at every foot in depth at low water, indicate that, to afford the neeessiuv depth for deep draft vessels lying at the wharves, a large amount of dredging and submarine rock excavation wir] be required, it is therefore necessary to decide at once whether such dredging and excavation should fie proceeded with or the wharves or piers carried out sufficiently far to obtain necessary depth.’’

At this stage the proceedings were adjourned till this morning.