CANTERBURY SURVEYS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 4452, 21 May 1875, Page 3

CANTERBURY SURVEYS.

TO TEE EDITOB OF THE LYTTELTON TIKES. Sie, — At the time when I wrote my former letter on the above subject, which appeared is your >|>eue of the 26th ult., I had pqly seen such portions of Major Palmer’* report a* had appeared in the public print*. Since then I have obtained a complete copy of the report, and 1 desire, with your permission, torefer to one or two extract* ■ which, have not yet been noticed in the newspapers. I (hall ask you to reprint one paragraph of .the report* as it so entirely bears put my former state- , ments-i in fact, I was quite. surprised at coming across it; after ail that had pri* . viously been advanced in' respect to "coetsy litigation ” and “ enormous compensation ”*«_ the result of erroneous section surveys. Many person* are under the impression that if Major Palmer’s recommendations are carriedout, the result will be a complete and thorough revision and correction of the survey*, and” that this work will be effected through the proposed expenditure of £IOO,OOO. . In my former letter,! pointed, out generally that many of the maps are, however, seriously, incorrect, not so much on account of the *eo-' tional boundaries being themselves wrong, bat because their- positions were not aoonrately fixed in relation to other sections or to trigonometrical stations.” And, again, referring to the large area of land which ha* been pur-, chased during the last few years, “ The m*ra process of surveying these lands musthavo: been the means of incidentally fixing the position of the old sections in the vicinity-and - supplying the connection which was so much required.”

Let ns now put Major Palmer info the Wit-ness-box and inquire what would be the cost, over and above the £IOO,OOO estimated for triangulation, of revising the imperfect sectioa surveys, and whether he would recommend that such revision should take place* - On page 21 of the report, he says, referring to the inaccuracy of the section surveys, “It would probably cost £300,000, in addition to triangulation, to set them all systematically to rights;” and on page 27 the following paragraph occurs (the italics are my own) : —"The question of revision of imperfect surveys alone remains to be considered. It is the moat dincult part of the subject. I cannot possibly recommend the Government to enter upon «o costly an undertaking as .a systematic resurvey of the large area, amounting, with. Native and confiscated lands, to some fourteen, millions of acres, the plans of which are known to he more or less imperfect. - -Ifor ist such a step by any means necessary . There are, no doubt, certain parts—those, namely, in which the consequences of inaccurate 'surveys are being seriously felt* causing trouble and litigation—to which early revision might he extended with advantage . Lands which have been sold from imperfect topographical surveys should also receive prompt attention. But a very large proper* tion of the whole may 'weU be left for the present ; or at least there need be no expensively active process, applied to it so long a* serious difficulty does not arise. In my accounts of the surveys, I explained hen and there that, even in parts where the work aa a whole is unsatisfactory, much of it might very possibly be redeemed if such checks braid bw applied as would show where the bad parts are and enable the good to be picked out. In. the triangulation and the principal traverses, will be found, I think, the system of oheoka desired. If old surveys are connected at all possible points with the trigonometrical basis, and replotted ( on the new sheets from original field book* (or from the maps, in eases where all necessary details are given), it is not unlikely that a good deal' will be found to fit in in such d manner as to leave a doubt of its accuracy > * * * * The revision, of whatever kin > t whether direct or tentative, should be an entirely separate Work, and its cost should be distinct from that of parent survey. Its itte of progress will evidently depend on th* supply of funds.” It is clear, therefore, that revision, as such, is only proposed to be undertaken in those parte where “ the inaccurate surveys are causing trouble and litigation.” I shall be glad if any of your readers who are acquainted with the subject will inform me where “ those parts ” are situate F If it is impossible to pioint out any' particular Iboaluiei where such evils exist, the recommendation* for specific revision, beyond that Which ib incidentally being performed at the present amount to nil. Members of Parliament—• who will in due course have to deal with thi* question—will do well, therefore, to bear in mind that the £IOO,OOO they will perhaps be asked to vote will be purely for a trigonometrical survey, and that the work of revising section surveys, if it is to be undertaken by the colony, will involve an extra expenditure equal* to three times that incurred for thfe triangulation. In reference to some of the remaiks in my former letter as to compensation on account of erroneous surveys, it seems pertinent to inquire to what extent this gross sum of £400,000 would meet all claims in that direction during the next few centuries ? Your obedient servant, COMMON SENSE.