Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE GISBORNE HARBOR

(To the Editor of the Herald.) Sir,— The Harbor Board has issued a financial statement Avhich makes pleasant reading — one Avay. A little investigation makes tho reading of it -unpleasant. Wo come across terms such as "harbor improvement," "harbor improvement ac- . count," "increased scour," "stopping drift i of sand," "since the works were stopped by j the GoA'ornment, 15 yeara ago, the Booi-d : lmve been trying to' improve the chan- | nel," and it appears all the heavy cx- ; penditure which tlie Board presents an account of in its balance-sheet has been spent "in improving the channel." Has First, let me draAv your attention to a slight discrepancy in the report yow have published. Tlie Overseer reports; "The present depth at end of breakwater, wit'h tide guage at zero (being the present tide guage called the Penguin tide giuige) is 15 feet." Tlie Harbormaster reports that "end of breakwater 10ft 6in." lam not concerned as to which is con-eel, but I will take the 15ft for my argument. Turning to a report issued and published by the Harbor Board on the 6th Ootober, 1888, and signed by John Thomson, harbor engineer, in tlie last paragraph occurs the following statement: "Soundings taken in May and June, 18ft at 900ft out, and 20ft at 1300ft out at high-water. Deduct sft from these depths and the results are at low-water," so that 900ft out the depth at low -water would bo 13ft; at loOOlt out 15ft; therefore, at 1100ft out, which is • the present end of the breakwater, tho depth Avould be 14ft at low-water, and the results of the Board's endeavors, as shown by their own reports, will read : — Year. Soundings at end of breakwater. 1888 14 feet, 1906 .15 feet (10ft 6in?) Is it one foot gained in 18 years, or is it 3ft 6in lost in 18 years? "Whichever it is, the results fen- the eighteen years of labor, after a vast expenditure, are nil. Mr Editor, the report presented to tile Board does not read well. — I am, etc., RED BUOY. [Tho statement issued by the Chairman of the Board in October, 1888, to Avhich the correspondent refers, has been laid before us, and the figures quoted are correct.]

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19060626.2.45.1

Bibliographic details

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10727, 26 June 1906, Page 4

Word Count
372

THE GISBORNE HARBOR Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10727, 26 June 1906, Page 4

THE GISBORNE HARBOR Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10727, 26 June 1906, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert