MR NAPIER BELL’S REPORT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 9187, 21 October 1898, Page 2

MR NAPIER BELL’S REPORT.

[to the editob.]

g IBj _I regret that Mr Tennent considered it his duty to rush into print. In cases even involving himself the usual way is to refer the matter to his Board. I understand now that Mr Tennent holds a sort of deputy-engineer’s position, and he considered himself en titled to take up the cudgels for the profession. His flippant letter has not extingu'shed, nor is it likely to extinguish me, , and he must take what others get who go into print. I did not intend my letter to ridicule Mr Bell. Had that been my object his retort gave me ample material to do so without going in a round-about w»y. Had I been in Mr Bell’s place and been invited by the Board to advise them on harbour matters 1 would have said to the Board that Mr Maxwell was their engineer and that out of professional etiquette in his absence 1 coma not in fairness to myself do so and go in the face of Mr Maxwell’s often repeated reports. Instead of doing what most men done, he hands into the Board a report which would puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer to know what he really does advise the Board to do, < accept, to do nothing until his friend, Mr Maxwell, comes out; a fine state of things in the crisis which surrounded the Board at that time, Mr Tennent says that Mr Bell made no visit to the beach after his reportwas written. I will

accept his correction, although the information I have would lead me to fancy his memory is defective on this point. However, I will take his version. Then the report is thus “going the round of the town that Mr N. Bell, C K., after presenting his special report to the Board and undergoing the faree oi cross-examination of its contents, had previously examined the beach north and south of the harbour.” From enquiries I find that Mr Tennant accompanied Mr Bell, I should suppose in the capacity of deputy-engineer. They drove along the beach north of the Washdyke Lagoon over hard blue clay and sand quite free from shingle It is also stated that they examined the north part of Caroline Bay, and found rough porous stone quite different from common beach shingle. Mr Bell (history does not say ■Mr 'J'ennent was with him) to satisfy himself ■went and examined the beach south of the harbour, but could find no atone such as he found in Caroline Bay. Now will Mr Tennent deny that they drove over hard blue clay with sand and free from shingle as above described? Will he deny that Mr Bell found the stone as described, and will he deny that Mr Bell could not find the same kind of stone south as he did north of the harbour, and finally will Mr Tennent deny that from his (Mr Bell’s) examination of the beaches as described, his conclusion was that there was not the slightest evidence to show that anv shingle had ever pased from the south of the harbour to the north of Caroline Bay ? I would not have troubled you to print, nor the public to read this, had it not been for the persistent attempts of a tribe of scribblers writing evidently with the object of showing their own importance, and I regret to think for the pure purpose of opposing those who are guided by their eyesight. My object in writing is to showjthateveu the Harbour Board’s own elected engineer has now satisfied himself that there is not the slightest appear/mce that ever any ehingle has drifted from the south of the harbour to the north beach, where we have been assured by no end of letters and speeches that it was lying in thousands of tons on the whale back, eto., etc., and yet when the locality was examined by Mr Bell and Mr Tennent, they found only a blue clay beach and sand. I am, etc., Enquirer.