THE FREEMAN'S BAY WALL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14302, 23 February 1910, Page 8

THE FREEMAN'S BAY WALL.

QUESTION OF REPAIRS.

WHAT WILL THE COST BE

Matters in ; connection with the recent collapse of a portion of the north reclamation wall at Freeman's Bay were further considered at a meeting of the Auckland Harbour Board- yesterday afternoon. The Board had been called together to consider the question of the appointment of experts to report in regard to the cause of the accident, and also to discuss the adviseableness of stopping all work upon the wall and discharging the men in the meantime.

The Chairman (Mr. A. J. Entrican) stated that he had asked the engineer (Mr. W. H. Hamer) for a comprehensive report upon the whole subject, but Mr. Hamer had not yet had time to prepare the report. He moved, "That the matter be deferred until the adjourned meeting of the Board, to be held on Friday evening next."

Mr. W. .1. Napier, in seconding the motion, said possibly it might be cheaper not to remove the debris, but to rebuild the destroyed portion of the wall outside of it, and so have a step in the north wall.

Mr. J. H. Bradney objected to the question being deferred, and he reiterated his opinion that the debris should not bo interfered with until after the proposed appointment of experts. The work should have been stopped immediately after the accident. As to Mr. Napier's suggestion in regard to the line of the wall, that was entirely an engineering affair. Mr.. J. K. Kneen said that the fact that Mr. Napier had once written a treatise on ferro-concrete did not make him an engineering authority. : The matter should be left to •practical men. ',; The engineer, in reply, to a question, said that he thought the conclusion he would arrive at would be that it would be best to remove the a debris.-

Mr. J. M. Mennie said he did not think the fact that a small accident had occurred was any reason . for interfering with* the original plan.' The whole world could see that a portion of the'wall had fallen down; there, was no mystery about that. It .might be advisable to leave a small portion of the debris for the'benefit of those who were dull of comprehension, but by all. means they should keep the. men at the work.

, Mr. H. M. Smeeton remarked that some of the piles, though bent, were still standing. He 'presumed that these would not be touched in the meantime.

.The engineer said they were not being touched. He • would report as fully as possible on . the matter on Friday night.

Mr. Bradney moved as an amendment, "That all work be stopped until the reports of the experts are received." He wished to be satisfied that they were not throwing good money after bad. Mr. Mennie had referred to a "small accident," but he. (Mr. Bradney) was informed, by experts that the cost of repairs Would run into about £100,000. , The engineer had estimated the cost. at £4300; but one-fourth of the wall (which was originally estimated to cost £36,000) had been carried away, and the repairs thus meant at least, £9000, to say nothing of the cost of removing the debris, which, he was informed, would be greater than that of replacing the wall. ■: Members should not, assume that the cost would be only £4300. ;' ■ The Chairman; We. are assuming nothing of the kind. , Mr. Bradney:' You will find that the cost will be in the vicinity of £100,000. I have my information from people who understand the work. •

, Mr. Napier: : Who are the people? Mr. Bradney: I am not giving the names ; but I can call them if you. like.

ill*. Napier r protested against the use of extravagant; one-sided statements such as .those made by Mr. Bradney. Mr. Bradnev said that the repairs would cost £100,000, but .his only authority were some nameless,-irresponsible persons. The Board was going to act on the authority of its own officials. •'■ Mr. Kneen: That' is what caused the wall to fall.

Mr. Napier said Mr. Hamer was the most capable engineer in Auckland; and he would be quite prepared to accept Mr. Hamer's decision. A number of so-called experts had a strong. animus against the engineer, and they were priming Mr. Bradney with certain alleged facts and calculations which were : not being paid for.; •. ..: " ' / . .. . - Mr. Bradney: How do you know? You must not judge other people by yourself. '' ■■■' • . , ■ '.' " ■

Mr. Napier: I presume that Mr. Bradney is not paying for this advice; but if he states' that he is paying for it I will accept his assurance. Mr. Hamer since he had been in Auckland had saved the Board scores of thousands of pounds. t

Mr. Bradney: How do you know? Mr. 1 Napier: In the matter of dredging alone,he reduced the cost by 50 per cent, when he came here.- '•

Mr. Bradney : How do you know that? Mr. Napier: I am prepared to prove it before a Royal Commission. , Mr. Bradney : That is what is required. Mr. Napier challenged Mr. Bradney to prove that the repairs would cost £100,000. , I

Mr., Bradnev: I am prepared to prove it: '. • .' ■*. ■ ''

Mr. Napier said that Auckland was the most notorious place in. New Zealand for the production of false witnesses. (" Oh !") When a man came here and would not conform .to the ideas of a certain clique the latter made a determined attempt to get rid of him. (Hear, hear.) -The Wellington Harbour Board had lately lost £80,000 through the "laitance" at their new. dock, and there were other likely losses, but there was not such a noise made about it, although there were some people howling there as well as here. He admitted that an error- had been committed in not placing stone between the clay and the wall;, but the suggestion that the engineer's department was canable of commiting forgery by cooking the plans—for that was what had been hinted at was an infamous one. -.

Mr. Bradney said that if he attacked the engineer at all it was only from a painful sense of duty, and if Mr. Homer came out of the inquiry with flying colours he would be the first to congratulate him. At the" same time, ho desired to have all the facts. One would think that Mr. Napier, instead of being present as a member of the Board, was holding a brief for the engineer. Mr. Napier denied that he had had any personal conversation on the subject with the engineer. Mr. Kneen, in referring to Mr. Napier's remarks, said that he did not belong to, any clique, and he had no animus in the matter. Mr. Napier: I am not referring to you. The Chairman, in closing the discussion, said that the engineer would have fair play, and none but his professional equals would be appointed to sit in judgment, on his work. Mr. Bradney's amendment lapsed for want of a seconder, and the motion to defer the matter till Friday evening was carried.