South Canterbury Times THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1900

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2955, 29 November 1900, Page 2

South Canterbury Times THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1900

The Harbour Board is face to face with ai disagreeable position They find that the contractors for the extension contract are not getting on so fast with the woik as they ought to have done, or at all events not so fast as they were expected to do, and that while there is no prospect of an early delivery of stone from the quarry, stone is very much required to repair damage to the breakwater. The Board have already spent a large sum, about £6OOO if we recollect aright, in repairs at the curve and on the) outer kant, and the amount of damage now needing to be made good is of at least equal amount. It is admitted that it is not much use putting over concrete blocks made of shingle, but certainly the same objection cannot be made to blocks made of broken metal, for such blocks have stood the battering of shingle, in the most exposed positions, in a most satisfactory manner. Broken metal is, however, very expensive material of which to make concreteblocks. We repeat what we have urged before, that blocks of still greater, resisting power, and of a cheapness with which not even shingle could compare, could be made by building up frames-full of rough rubble masonry, the rubble to be as large as possible, but of mixed sizes so as to pack close together, the interstices to be filled with shingle concrete to serve merely as t coarse mortar for the rubble. Anyone who looks over the side at the latest block of repair work at the curve, may see numbers of chunks of dolerite projecting from the worn face of the monolith blocks filled in by Mr Stumbles, these showing two things — that the dolerite wears very slowly, and that it does not take a great deal of shingle concrete to hold a chunk against the shock of the waves. If there is any great hurry to get the blocks over, before the quarry can be opened up, such rubble masonry blocks could be made at a much cheaper rate than ordinaiy shingle concrete blocks, as they need much less cement. If the quarry can be opened up at an early date, the Board will rely upon getting big stones from it to replace the losses from the sea side of the monolith, but seeing what a large waste there has been of concrete blocks through their slipping away, a large delivery of rubble blocks must be needed to do all that is required. It is hoped, of course, that when the extension is somewhat advanced the outer kant will be protected to a considerable extent, but whether any appreciable protection will be gained for it, from an extension in the designed direction, remains to be seen.

There is another aspect of this matter that should not be lost sight of, and that is that the past and present experience quite justifies all the criticisms that rve have passed upon Mr Maxwell’s advice. He assured the Board, and they believed him, that the shingle would give them no trouble. It has caused the expenditure already of thousands to repair damage to the breakwater for which the shingle alone is to blame, and a similar amount is now required for further repairs. It has kept the dredges pretty well going for a couple of years at shingle-shifting, though this was .an operation that was not to be undertaken on any account. It is true that the shingle has never blocked the entrance, as was at one time the chief fear, but good luck rather than good foresight explains that escape. And now the extension contract is muddled and jeopardised because Mr Maxwell’s .advice regarding it was followed in defiance of better business practice in regard to supply of plant and material. If the Board, as the chairman urged, had not been advised against procuring all the heavy plant and costly material needed, and the tenders restricted to little more than labour, both plant and material could have been more cheaply obtained, <uid the risks and liabilities of tenderers being reduced, the field of tendering would have been immensely widened. It is no use crying over spilt milk, perhaps, but it is well to know how it came to be spilt, as a. warning for the future. We commend to the notice of our readers the “ Reflections on Pigs ” which we publish in another column, in which a clever Auckland writer points out to us the frame of mind in which we ought to go to an

agricultural show, and the same reflections apply also to horticultural shows, of which we shall have one presently. We are inclined to think, though, that the writer gives too large a share of praise to the Artists who have produced the prize pigThey could not have done much in that way without the willing and generous and intelligent assistance of that “Nature” which he refers to in one place—whatever the term “Nature” may be interpreted to mean.