CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Herald, Volume L, Issue 12291, 25 June 1903, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

| We are, not responsible for the opinions expressed by correspondents. The writer's name as a guarantee of good faith, must be enclosed in the letter.) _-

THE TABA3jPAfet)BARBOUR.

' To"' the E&tc[rJ' ; . Sir,' — Tihere are two ;.*•« items- in the history which I -think* "closer inqfuiry would hartily pro(ve to.be according \to "Cocker." For instance "when the [plant ordered in England by Sir Johin •Qoode' arrived'/' and tHe passing oiver as a matter "not necessary to inftuire into here 6f the . difference which arx>se -between, the engineer * appointed by the Board anjd - Sir J.oihri Oo.ode. The chief reason, in fact, the irripos-. si'bility of following otiit Sir Cookie's intentions' of ,- building the. bull-nosed para-pet > length- - ; by ■ length as the sections of the, pier itself advanced seawmrd, was caused^ by this difference of opinion, antl it is the ■foundation of subsequent troubles: My .recollection . is that the Board's" engineer, "thinking to salve the percentage charge ■which Sir .i><>hn Coode wcfuld be en-titled io had he ' ondet'dd, the .plant, todlcT utpon hiinsejlf' 'the responsibility of selecting the Goliath,, whidh provqet t<> be *■ too. wide id,, wor>k .baekwar&s and - forwattiffe^ along the v|ea%ar > d . pouilon of }bhp% csomorete pier' and. at the same time allow of the jiroifeetive- . parapet^ being d-ecteH on•the sea* side. .Also ' Sir JoJin ' Coocleonly required- tfiat a , contractor's engineer 'be engaged to. carry out his accepted -xle&igjns;~ Tlie, Boarid dif— ' iered Vonssiderabjly on, ifcis. PS>k n % arid appomtccT "to "start -with, L who%stjuck oiut. for' their* own .methods. Hence Sir- -.John- Codde, severed hie ■connection' with the Board.' An ex— 'atffcly' similar woitfr. as 7^ iffe* c,o>icret« design', for: New, ' Plym.oftith - harbour, ■was carried, out' at- .Wamamfcool; ' in. Victoria, from Sir jJiobn ,C6o&e% 'plans and according to?.his_ jnsfeuiQtioijs^ , 'biut only for a pioi'iion of tlio. .Inten'dqcl v length , has sjbootl and, 'answered, torgoading. axijcl .-at <-the breakwater itself, tb© buU-noJ^e parapet Sn,i the case, of heajvy weather causing tlie"i waves an.tl broken water- or'slway to : recoil -on the incoiniing wave?, thereby 'deadening to sjomc .extent the _ forces i beating againsit ' the sjylria^e '6f the breakwater. 'No' heed <ao^>W be gat to this until the Gqverfam«nt 'pu.blish'ed Sir ifofen j ;Oqoid[e.'R repjorU and copies of the 'detail, plans', > the sectional,, drawings of* which sihow at together with- the. woril img of the report, how haft l3een the initial mistake in not sifcrictly abid'inj? by his advice . i arid „ recomnifew3ationa« It ' seems to me a pity in giving a history that such an important iterni .should, be skipped. Of courrse, after the r-ui&ble protection of the wall hafcl been thi'own into the sea. thus making an easiy'gi:ade slide, for ,peas ami sanld •to come over the wall into the* harbour, no engineering, talfent ctvuid econ'oirrioally remedy the initial wrong doing. But blaming r Coode., fSeeingr that both his design® and methods of carrying on the worjk. were overridden, i» not, as at first rem-arke'd, according to Cocflxer.— A I am, etc.. ' , if.X. .(llheve has? been no intention on 'tihe part of the compiler of the history to ' blame Sir John Coodt* for ; anything. | With respect to the plant, it was, we J find, ordered by Mr Reea; prasiumably-j through, after, consultation with Sir , John Cood-e. , However, it mjatitersi lit- j tie now who , ortfored it. It . was or- j dered and' paid for, atvd some . of Jt I proye,d useful, some- otherwise. With j regard to the differences between Sir ! John Coode and Mr Keess i^ would, j ui£.ke a pamftJhlet in itself to go into these thoroughly, ami then they would, have no bearing on. the ques- j tion as it s/fcands to-day. Ak to the bull-nose parapet, Mr John McGregor, | C.E., strongly advised the Board to discontinue its construction, as being a sou'rese of danger to > ' the stability of the m>gle, by proiclmcing .umnecossary oscillalaoix when Sitrticfk by the waves, aiid increasing the liability to settle.raent and cvaokim^ belojw. Mt Kenworthy ai^jcars 1 to think that 'the building of I^he parapet, as* designed by* Sir John Qfortde, would have obviated the necessity for the protecting apron work and alsio enabled vrtssela to use the brealcwator as a quay. The experience of 180.3 proK'eicl the apron work to be an absblute necessity, witile the, experience of Dover shows the futility of a .parapet $o protoct the' iquay in very rosugh weather. A corres^jonident 'Wrote to the fjondon Times a few weeks ago complaining that he and his . sick wife had been simply bundled o;ff the Calais steamer on to the pier, 'I<he whole length, of \v*hich they had to Walk to the harbour station. The waves were male-, ing a clean siweep over the pier, j which was eniveloptttl , for^ its entire i length in clouds of driving spray, ! ! wfmle green peas were , burstiug [through all the 6penings an<i .clqluging ihe roadway, so that the. ordeal ' |to be faced was a trying- one even for strong men. 1 There was not everi a waiting-room nt the end of the pier. This seems to xis to ffoow vhat had the bull-nose, iparapet^ been, carried on 1 here 'tije. wharf wrtul'd 'still' have; been required. Airiyhowr^t apipeared to the Harbour Board at the time' that there were - goad reaßoms for > adopting Mr MtiGtregior'-s to discontinue it. W(hile tha^kini? Mr Kenworthy for his correcti»Tij», the , compiler would remark that he pjur'posely tried to afoid tho realiirii'ection of oltl controversies stoch aw that boiweon Coo'de and" Reoa, pince it eoiikl <lo v no good [now.— Ed. T.H 1 .).