HARBOUR POLICY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20099, 4 May 1935, Page 18

HARBOUR POLICY

MR E. R. ISAAC STATES HIS VIEWS Mr E. R. Isaac, who is a candidate for the Harbour Board, has issued the following statement: — I had hoped that the election for representation on the Timaru Harbour Board would have been fought in a clean spirit, but I can not help hearing the innuendos in regard to myself and also to notice my name mentioned in correspondence. I was for fourteen continuous years a member of the Board, but at the last election through being indisposed I did not seek election, but now being fully restored to health I decided this year to again ask the electors to again honour me with their confidence. When this became known I was asked to stand down, as a ticket had been formed with the object of defeating Mr Dawson at the elections. I do not agree with Mr Dawson in his policy, as those who read will note what I have stated later in this article. I have always found him a most courteous gentleman, a man of the highest integrity, and for the seven years he was chairman of the Board he gave nearly all his time in what he considered the best interests of the ratepayers. I refused to allow myself to be associated with such questionable tactics and accordingly sent in my nomination. Advocacy of Improvements When I first became a member of the Board I made a number of long speeches in regard to harbour improvements for which at that time I was severely criticised. Kindly allow me to quote extracts from my speeches. 1920. “The failure of Harbour Boards to develop their ports to the utmost capacity affects the whole community in increased cost of production, and it helps to keep up rates for freight. All this of course reacts on the community in the form of high cost of living.” 1921. “I ask you gentlemen seriously to consider the position to apply the cost against the enormous saving to the community. You must all agree that a port so situated as this one should be the distributing centre for the South Island, that the double handling and delays caused by the present system will have to be eliminated and cargo landed direct into your sheds. We have even now when the cost of petrol is so high, evidence that the fixed iron rail for transferring of cargo to short distances is on the wane, and when power becomes cheaper the road will be used for longer distances.” 1922. “I earnestly urge that every year a sum be spent in protecting your main arm of defence, the Evans Extension, and that a mole from the bend be run out in an easterly direction to the 31 feet contour. Only after this has been done, probably many years hence, w|jen the shipping and revenue generally has recovered sufficiently to warrant it. would the mole from Dashing Rocks be undertaken.”

In 1933 I got a resolution carried at a Harbour Board meeting that matters I had brought forward should be investigated. In 1924 a Royal Commission was called together. In 1925 a report was paid for to Messrs Holmes Bros., Wellington, in regard to harbour improvements. In 1926 a further Royal Commission was called. In 1928 another Royal Commission was called. At all of the above I gave evidence urging harbour improvement. Messrs Holdemess, Waters and Lee, members of the 1928 Royal Commission strongly advised the Board not to call a further Commission together until 1937. As they stated a loan of £230,000 would fall due and the Board would have a sinking fund of £BO,OOO at this date. Its financial position would be very much better and that they had no doubt that they would then receive very favourable consideration. About five years ago I visited Auckland and called on Mr Holderness, when Timaru Harbour affairs were fully discussed. There is no need for me to go into details in regard to this conversation but he again assured me that matters would have to stand as they were until 1937. Last year another scheme was brought forward known as “Captain White’s Scheme,” but this was already turned down by the 1926 Royal Commission. The Board’s last harbourmaster did not endorse it. Allow me to quote Mr Clark, then resident engineer to the Board. “He was, however of opinion that it would cost about £50,000 and he assumes that the growth of trade will necessitate its being removed later at a large cost.” The Royal Commission, Messrs Marchbank, Blair-Mason and Holdemess also refused to consider it. The Board, In its wisdom, called in Mr Lee, one of the 1928 Royal Commission, whom had previously advised the Board to wait until 1937. Mr Lee turned the scheme down. In regard to centralisation I may state that I am getting on in years and that my company has no superannuation scheme, and if it were carried I would lose my position. Mr Chiles in his letter in Friday’s “Herald” is quite aware of this and his letter is only objectionable propaganda. However, the public will decide. Dredging Outside North Mole. Extract from minutes January, 1927: Mr Isaac raised the question of the Dredge “No. 350” being employed in dredging on the west side of the Marine Parade when not actually required in the entrance channel in order to arrest the travelling sand and at the same time be improving the depths for the proposed harbour improvement. After consideration it was decided that the resident engineer be requested to complete the sounding and survey of Caroline Bay, etc., as proposed and that he submit a report to the Board later dealing with the question of dredging alongside the Marine Parade on the west side as suggested by Mr Isaac. A channel was dredged from the end of the Marine Parade towards the beach a width of 160 feet costing about £2OOO. My object in suggesting this channel was to trap the travelling silt which come across the Bay and to preserve the Bay for all time; to trap silt before reaching the channel and so keep It more clear for navigation purposes. With the completion of this experimental channel it was then left in the hands of the Board’s experts to condemn or approve of my suggestion. About two years later the resident engineer Mr Clark sent in a report which stated that they had full evidence that this channel had achieved its purpose. He suggested dredging it out again and to increase its width from 160 feet to 320 feet. Captain McDougall, our late harbourmaster, asked that it be continued further out to connect with the navigation channel, i.e., to stretch from the end of the Eastern Extension into the Bay. This was carried out at a cost of about £13,000. Since I left the Board this channel has again been neglected. I trust that I have explained my fourteen years stewardship. MR W. H. OKBELL’S CAMPAIGN Mr W. H. Orbell, who is contesting a seat as the representative of the Northern District of the Levels County, continued his campaign last night, addressing a small attendance at Seadown. The chair was occupied by Mr R. J. Edgar. Mr Orbell covered the harbour situation fully, going into detail in regard to the proposed improvements. He pointed out that the proposal to extend the North Mole was for a distance of 600 feet before bending to a point outside the concrete breakwater, and this would give a good deal of additional swinging room in the harbour. In regard to this point he said that on Anzac Day he had gone out on to the Port Fairy, which was standing out waiting to enter the harbour. He had climbed over the ship’s rail at 6.15 a.m. and she had entered the harbour mouth at 7.10, and he had walked ashore at 8 a.m. He had stood on the bridge and wondered several times if she were going to crash into the mole. The swinging room was far too small. Referring to the cost of the proposed Improvements, Mr Orbell said that these had been put down at £BO,OOO, but he was firmly convinced that the work could be done for much less. A fair amount of dredging would have to be done, and the cost of this would be additional. On the motion of the chairman, seconded by Mr H. M. Brosnahan, Mr Orbell was accorded a hearty vote of thanks.