THE HARBOUR QUESTION.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 1657, 10 January 1895, Page 4

THE HARBOUR QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE TIMAUU HERALD. Sin, — As every reference to the harbour question is of present interest, I send you herewith extracts, under the hand of Mr C. Y. O'Connor, of letters addressed to me and to Mr Tennent. They have come to me with full permission to make them public, and consequent on my having asked him to tell me whether he had ever given his sanction, even m a private letter, to any work of construction under the existing circumstances. I am, &c, Edward Acton. Fordlands, Jan. 9th, 1895. The following are the extracts referred to by Mr Acton and enclosed m his letter : — Extract from a letter, Mr C. Y. O'Connor to Edward Acton, dated Perth, W.A., Dec. sth, 1894:— "As regards the chief point alluded to m your letter, namely, the allegation that I recommended an extension of the mole from its outer end, I think my letter of the Bfch November, 1893, to Mr Tennent, of which I enclose copy extract, was sufficiently explicit to show thivt I never really did make any such recommendation, my remarks being merely a matter of common sense from the standpoint of the Board itself, rather than involving any question of engineering opinion. That is to say, m fact, the case might be likened to that of a man who is determined to commit suicide, and proposes to do it by the aid of a razor, whereas it might be suggested to him that it might be neater and pleasanter altogether if he were to go and drown himself. Thus, m my case 2 I thought that either of the alternatives would be unwise, but that of the two, the one which I suggested Avould be somewhat " less objectionable than the other one." " Extract from a letter from Mr C. Y. O'Connor to Mr W. J. Tennent, secretary Timaru HarTxmr Board, dated Perth, Bth November, 1893 :— " Dear Mr Teuuent.— ln reply to your letter of 23rd ult.., marked ' private . . . . If the Board are determined to extend the breakwater, why don't they extend it from the .extreme outer- end, as indicated m blue pencil on plan herewith, instead of extending it from the elbow, as indicated by red pencil dots, which I understand from your letter to be the intention. I have been for some time past, as you are aware, opposed to any such extension, for the reason that I thought that dredging would be a better way of meeting the difficulty, and I am still of the same opinion, but at the same time, if the -Board are determined to ignore all the other interests at stake, and to consider merely the question of the harbour itself, I should imagine I that their object would be better obtained by the extension indicated m .blue than by an equal expenditure at red dots. You are also iVeiy likely aware of the , fact tbat'l was entirely opposed to putting the elbow on the mole at afi, being of opinion that it would have been better to have continued it straight out m the original direction, but I had to approye of it as the least of two evils (the. other alternative being to bring it still more to the west). But now that the kant exists, I should think that it would be better from the Board's point of view, to make use of it, as far as it goes, towards increasing the gathering ground, rather than to ignore it, from that point of view, which the extension of the mole from the elbow would practically do." The third enclosure was the "plan herewith " above mentioned, one of the lithographed plans of the harbour, with a blue line showing the suggested extension from the end, parallel with the first part of the breakwater, and a reddotted line showing a continuation of the mole at the curve, " straight out."