AUCKLAND'S HARBOR.

NZ Truth, Issue 251, 16 April 1910, Page 5

AUCKLAND'S HARBOR.

FREEMAN'S BAY COLLAPSE.

The Board Exonerates Engineer.

Bradney's Minority Report Rejected.

On Friday night a meeting of the Auckland Harbor Board, m committee, took place, and Engineer Hamer submitted a report m reply to that of the experts, m which he concurred m their findings. The board referred the matter to a sub-committee consisting of Messrs Napier Gunson and Bradney to diaft a report. This committee mm m raj, tia, and had a battle royal, Hrailney! refusing to agree to the findings of the other men, and deciding to submit a minority report to the board m committee. \ At 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday last the draft report was placed before members. After an hour's wrangling, during which Bradney's minority report was burked, the press were admitted, and, formal business being rushed through, the "piece de resistance* was presented, and the chairman (Mr A. J. Entrican) moved its adoption. He briefly traversed Engineer Hamer's career with the board, and said that the engineer bad been on his trial, but that the report exonerated him. Mr . Heather seconded the motion. The report was then ■ handefi to the press. The committee recorded their astonishment at the testimony as to the careless way m which .the piles r were driven, to which was attributed the accident. They also recommended that \Sieiks of works and supervisors be appointed by the board on the recommendation of the engineer. . Finally, they exonerated the; engineer and the officers and employes of the board. The report of the experts distinctly discloses faulty designing, faulty wort; and an unauthorised departure from a stable plan ; " nevertheless, the board's officials are whitewashed, and no blame is attachable to anyone ! The wall is to be re-erected on the original site, m accordance -with the detailed recommendation of. the advising engineers, and an absolute loss, variously estimated - but approaching ±J 20,000, will have to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers to rectify what is apparently the result of a serious blunder which should never have been made by members of any public body. Bradney's minority report emphatically dissents from the report of his fellow sub-cominitteemen. It displays no personal feeling against Engineer .Hamer, who was (it admits.) always actuated by a desire to protect the public interest. The experts' report fixes the cause of the collapse as the lateral pressure exerted by materiaft deposited behind the wall ; m other words, the wall was not strong enough to stand the strain thrown on it, and therefore it 1 fell down. Bradney contends that the board's engineer was responsible not only for the ' structural design of the wall, but also for the efficient execution of his plans by his subordinates. The clause of reference, so far as carelessness m pile-driving is concerned, cannot .exonerate the engineer, whose business should be to see that the work . m his charge is efficiently done. The experts state clearly that without the supports provided for m the original plans, and omitted or radically modified m Hamer's working plans, the structure as a whole is not sufficiently strong to stand heavy lateral pressure. The wall could not, m any case, have stood the strain intended to be placed on it. The appearance of further signs of collapse m other portions of the work strongly confirms the experts' views. Hamer . says that the filling is not nearly up to the deck level, the inference therefore is that no undue strain has yet been thrown; on to the structure. Messrs Holmes and Walsh suggest, before any filling is deposited ton the reclamation near enough to cause pressure at Hie back of the wall, the soft material m the vicinity of the wharf be removed and replaced by sound stone ballast, also that land ties be provided. The experts say thai the structure ol itself is not sufficiently strong to stand heavy lateral pressure caused by filling. The experts mean that the substituted design did not contain provision for stone ballast m the form m which it appeared on the original design. As a matter of lact, the working plan differs from the authorised one m this very particular. Hamer's substituted plan provided lor placing stone ballast, not on the bed reek, bat on the sorfaee of the mud overly ing the rock, where the effect would be entirely different. Hamer asserts emphatically that the amended design would have been as sound as the original plan. The experts say, feat the structure erected by -him m accordance with the amended plan is not stti&aenrtiy strong for its purpose. Secretary Brigfeam holds Bradney's minority report. \ Regarding the north wall at Freeman's Bay, no amended or substituted plan was approved either by the committee or by the board. The laying of rafls upon the north wall was approved, bat neither the report nor the plan as to file alteration of the methods of the construction of the north wall was approved by Mitchelson, the late chairman of the> Auckland Harbor Board. Regarding clause 1, the experts' reports strongly apply the dictionary ". meaning of -the word "superstructure" ; the experts say tiie superstructure is good. Admittedly so — see clauses. 1 and 3-rbut clause 1 distinctly says' that Hamer's amended plan and its construction are not sufficiently strong,* etc. - ;