THE HARBOR SCHEMES.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4714, 19 October 1886, Page 2

THE HARBOR SCHEMES.

Sin, — Like many of your readers who have remained neutral, I have observed the agitation that has gone on for some time past with reference to the site of the proposed breakwater. As the respective parties have at last placed their views in writing clearly before the public I should like, as a permanent settler here, and as one who, in common with his fellow settlers, desires to promote the best interests of the place, free from party or personal jealousies, to offer some remarks upon the subject. And let me observe at the outset that it is a healthy sign to see public interest aroused in all matters that vitally affect the welfare of the community at large. AV</o, the vigilance exhibited over the question of tho breakwater for this port to my mind should be thoroughly commended, is complimentary to the intelligence of the district, and in the long run cannot fail to be productive of good. Better far to have the pros mid am* of the various schemes set at rest at this juncture than that trouble should arise at a more advanced period of the undertaking. It is unnecessary to enter upon a criticism or the Harbor Board, the Engineer, and the controversialists generally, but this much may be observed, that the Board appears to have made a mistake in not taking the public more fully into their confidence. As it was, for months profound grievances existed in tho mind of the general public as to where the breakwater was intended ta be. Had a few pounds been expended in having purchased a lithograph chart of the harbor, and furnishing information along with it, showing the advantages and disadvantages ofj the various proposed sites for break watei s much discontent would have been allayed. As it was, the general outside public only saw what was noing on as viewed ''through glass, darkly." A halo of mystery invested the proceedings of the Board. This created suspicion that all was not right, and as the public were allowed to remain in the dark, fear, begotten of ignorance, was the outcome of this unenlightened state. It is due to the persistent action of a few that the mental darkness that prevailed is now removed. To do this effectually the services of a professional advocate, skilled in his calling, were secured. Fortunately, it was so, for it must be conceded by all that in the hands of so accomplished an advocate as Mr W. Li. liees nothing would be wanting on hia part in dealing with the merits and demerits of rival breakwater schemes. It is therefore extremely gratifying that such an exponent has been found to take the lead on the side Mr Reea represents, for, independently of agreeing or disagreeing with him, the views he propounds are placed explicitly before the public. The present breakwater site is objected to by Mr Rees, on behalf of the Commit' tee he represents (inter alia), that the works are merely river improvements, and will result in a failure, judging from the evidence the Committee obtained. As an alternative site Mr Rees, in his letter forwarded to the Board on behalf of the Committee appointed by the public meeting, states :— " We think that at or about Stony Point is the best place to build a breakwater, (a) Because there is plenty of depth of water to be got within a short distance of the shore. (6) Because there is about nine chains of rock as a starting point, and because we believe tnere is a rock foundation pretty free from a covering of sand a greater part of the distance under the water, and because we believe we would be free from the great trouble of silting. (c) Because a depth of 30ft at low water can be reached by a length of breakwater very much shorter than that now shown on the present plan to get 21ft at low water. (d) Because a work starting from this point would satisfy tho requirements of the district and fulfil the conditions imposed by the Act. (f 1 ) Because if the money takes us into 20ft to 30ft of water at low tide the scheme would have this great advantage, that it would be complete as far as it goes." Referring to an interview Mr Rees had with the Harbor Board Engineer, the latter states iv his report, that Mr Rees said, " That at least 30ft at low water is required ; that the work should be so designed that in future or by means of future loans or Government assistance it could be oon verted into a harbor of refuge ; that the public would be content to do with a minimum of present accomodation for shipping so long as they know that ultimately they can have a large harbor by further expenditure ; and further that the consideration of coat is not an engineering question." Other objections are also raised by Mr Rees, such as, that the expenditure of the Joan on the present site is illegal, also " That in a strong south or southeast gale, it would be unsafe for any ship or schooner of 200 or 300 tons to try and round the" end of the breakwater into shelter, and in fact they would keep as faraway from it as possible." This, I think, fairly represents the case for Mir Rees' clients. The public now, are in a very different position, for expressing an opinion, upon the question, than hitherto, and for this reason, they have had before them the Harbor Board Engineer's report, read at the last meeting of the Board, and also Mr Rees' scries of objections, both communications having been published in your columns.

I am aware that many others besides myself, who favored the Stoney Point neighbourhood, and watched with interest Mr Rees' exertions, are forced to admit, after reading the Engineer's report, that the objections to tho Stoney Point site are insuperable. Every one who takes an interest in the question, should read tho two reports, sido b> side, and approach the consideration of the subject, not with feelings of partisanship, but in a calm! judicial frame of mind. For, as to the alternative schemes proposed, the public now, are somewhat in the position of a jury. They have been appealed to often on the subject, and have now the " facts" before them upon which to determine the case. We have an array of " facts " from Mr Rees' side. Also facts furnished by the Harbor Board Engineer in support of the "authorised plan." What is material and should not be ignored, we have also in the latter case, "the law," as well, represented by tho formal sanction of the. Government, to the Authorised plan, thus demolishing any bogie that might, be roused as to the Board acting contrary to Statute, in expending money on the present site. This is an important objection to the present site, removed. Dealing now with Mr Rees' objections, if they are not completely answered by the Engineer's report, that report raises objections fco Mr Rees' proposals, that ar« of such a character as to be absolutely overwhelming and unanswerable. There is no pretence that the present works are to constitute a harbor «f refuge. As to the allegation that as river improvement works they will be a failure the Engineer shotvs conclusively in his report chat such will not be the case. Upon that point, after emoting figures, he states :— " That the Authorised plan preserves the river, will allow a large 'portion of the tracu! to bo done on the town side below the present cattle yard, the pier is well sheltered by the reefs, and vessels will b» able to use it when they would require te> haul o<{" at Stoney Point. It can also be> utilised for small vessels almost at. itfice,. and although it does not give so- much water for the intermediate portion, yet it can be extended into deepe? water than the other. The Stoney Point scheme, on the other hand, gives the greater depth of water at first, but has the great drawback that this dapth could not be utilised till all the rocks, even the most seaward,, were removed by blasting and dredging,,

M

80 that practically speaking the whole pier would require to bo built before it could be utilised." Referring more specifically to tho objections to Stoncy Point, in another portion of the report, the Engineer states :— " Tho objections to Stoney Point are that it i.i further from town, will givo less shelter for vessels, the bottom is very rough being a mass of papa reefs, no vessel would be able to use the harbor till all these were cleared uway which would be a most axpensive job unless done under the shelter of tho pior. So that would be some years before any benefit would bo obtained from the outlay. On the other hand, with the authorised plan, although it does not >/ive so great a depth of water at first, yet every foot of it can be used for shipping, step by step as the work goe3 out, and for £50,000 above the present loan it gives on the straight about three feet more water than Stoney Point." A3 the issue, practically, submitted to the public is, so far as they have a voice in the matter, to choose between Stoney Point and tho present site, lot ua examine stili further the Engineer's report : — " In comparing the Authorised and Stoney Point breakwaters it is not alone necessary to take the depths of water into account, but even from that point alone wo rind that, although for £175,000 the authorised plan gives 21 feet to the sand with a probability of getting 23' feet by river scour, against 24.\ feet at Steney Point ; yet for £250,000 the Stoney Point plan gives a decrease in depth, whereas the other scheme would give 20 feet to tho sand, or about 30 feet to the rock at low water." Here then, the public — the intelligent jury— have before them clearly and distinctly the physical and financial objections to the statement that Stoney Peint is a suitable place for the breakwater. Those who contend that 30 feet depth at least is required, and can bo obtained by adopting the Stoney Point site, are met by Mr Thomson's positive averment, that the depth simply cannot be obtained there— nay more— that even if £250,000 were spent, instead of an increased depth being obtained, an absolute decrease would be tho result. No one who looks at tho subject impartially but must feel bound to attach greater importance to a report from an Engineer of recognised standing in his profession, than from the vague statements culled to " the man in the Btreet," no matter how readable such statements may be rendered by the aid of (Continued on fourth page. )

professional advocate . Mr Rees is entitled to the t thanks of the public for being instiumenal in throwing lighi upon the breakwater struKgle but should, on the evidence adduced except a nonsuit for his clients. Failing to show that the river improvements will be a failure— indeed he expresses himself guardedly and says— 44 Judging from tho evidence we can obtain," ho has aloO caused many fond anticipations as to promenading alonsj the Stoney Puint Breakwater to be ruthlessly dispelled. Had Mr Rees held a brief for the Harbor Board and Mr John Thomson and argued against Stoney Point, what a deplorable condition would "the other side "be in now. What a reputation Stoney Point would have secured as a sito for a breakwater 1 In what language would he de- J pict the helpless idiocy of the people who had the temerity to suggest such a sp»t 1 How he would descant upon the " deficient shelter," the mass of reefs, vessels dashed to pieces on the rocks. With what pathos would he describe the irretrievable wrong done to the community, and posterity, the public money squandered, all —all— to culminate in leaving to our children a breakwater that would be a maritime monument of engineering imbecility. ButMr Rees happenednot to be retained for the defence. The Harbor Board had nothing but the report furnished by their Engineer — Mr John Thomson — a clear, comprehensive and logical production, full of frankness, neither a defence nor a protest, and free from all technical ambiguity. A perusal of the report, impressed one with the conviction that the author was conscious he was in the right, that his allegations were incontrovertible, for " thrica armed is he who hath his quarrel just." It appears that, if the Stoney Point scheme were adopted, some years must elapse before any benefit would be obtained from the outlay, and it is freely Stated in effect in certain quarters that the public are willing " to put up with a minimum of present shipping accommodation for the future advantages a harbor of refuge will afford. There are many who are prepared to enter a solemn protest against that statement. The financial considerations a harbor of refuge involves •hould be earnsetly weighed by the public Ask your sheepfarmers, propertyowners, exporters, your ratepayers of the county if they are willing to put up with aminimum of present shipping accommodation while they contribute for years to the cost of making a harbor of refuge here for the colony 1 Ask the working men of the place — men willing to labor from morn to night if employment can be had — if they | are willing that the best years of their lives should be spent in the struggle for existence, with insufficiency of employment, and hoping against hope while the district is kept back until the harbor of j refuge is built 1 Ask of the trades people if they are satisfied that trade should remain in the stagnant state it now is, and will undoubtedly continue to be in if we are to put up with a minimum of present shipping accommodation, and wait for the harbor of refuge ? 1 believe 1 am expressing the j honest conviction of every individual who voted for.the £200,000 to be raised for the breakwater, that, if it had been stated at the time that "a minimum of present shipping accommodation would be what the district would get for the money — and that all their hopes were to hang on the ultimate prospects of further loans and expenditure necessary for a harbor of refuge — that loan number one would never have been raised. I took an active part in having the County constituted a Harbor Board district, but I am not aware that the local governing bodies at the time contemplated that the result of their labors were to be reaped only in the remote future. The Authorised breakwater, without sacrificing future requirements, meets present wants. Its proximity to town reduces the expenae in handling goods, and we are told by the Engineer in his report that " there can be no question that this plan, whilst capable of being extended to 30 or 40 feet of water, if the future prosperity of the district warrants the outlay, will give very large present facilities to shipping, step by step, as the work goes out, and will interfere in no way with the future improvement of the river, but on the contrary improve it very much. Thus it is that the true interests of the district will be best conserved aud promoted by carrying on two great works simultaneously — increasing the immediate shipping facilities of the port and opening up the country to settlement by means of roads and tramways. As the facilities for sending produce from the port are increased, so also should be increased the facilities for getting produce to the port. And it is in this latter direction for a long time to come future local public money should be expended, and not upon sow c gigantio work that is manifestly on© for the colony at large to pay fur. Apart from other consideration* there is this, by no means improbable difficulty, that Parliament might refuse to sanction the borrowing of large sums by local bodies, such as Harbor Boards, in view of the enormous indebtedness of the colony, and although we have, as Mr Rees states, " a strong olaim on the Government for substantial monetary assistance to carry out the work," there is the unfortunate fact staring us in the face that the English money-lender has a stronger and a prior claim upon the Colonial Treasury. So, if we neglect to utilise judiciously the money already raised, we might find lef^ upon our hands, part of a breakwater *' na £ would neither afford shipping ac n " n dation or a refuge for ships u>*' harbor and, having to trust to cor n , B j£VrfJfi work to some oontiuge- ->P^™ °* „* in the unknown fut-- ■•«*. VJffSIE prospect looming ' -"• } ndeod > th«mere Lrbor loan h- -. m the distance of a large security of -* vin K to be ™«ed on the mentalJ' loCal rateS> woul " operate detridist"'" y to dett l ement ' 1'h c tact tnat tn ' 8 p _iCt is so free from heavy taxation ..s compared with Uamaru, Timaru and elsewhere, is largely in its favor, and is in itself an incentive to people to come and settle here. Will that incentive continue if the district bacoraes saddled with the responsibility of carrying out a work that is essentially a colonial undertaking '( While the Board, the Servants as well as th» representatives of the public should be prepared to accept modification and the present design so long as it can be shown i they are improvements, stronger argument however, than any yet adduced, should be forthcoming to justify in the eyes of the public further ' ' stonewalling. " M. J. G.