STATEMENT BY MR THATCHER.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11952, 2 April 1894, Page 2

STATEMENT BY MR THATCHER.

ATTACK ON ME BARE, RESEARCHES > INTO ANCIENT HISTORY. The permission having be9n granted, Mr Thatcher (the Chairman) read the following: — It is necessary I should give a fall explanation of a remark I made at the last meeting of the Board, which was either misunderstood or else wilfully misrepresented by tho editor of tlie Chronicle in a lead&r the following week. The editor of the Chtonicle had narrowed the question down, by what he had himself said, in a leader previously, anenc Mr Reynolds' report; " His report, so far as it goes, is refreshingly outspoken— especially on matters on which his opinion was not asked. We do not, however, find fault with him for travelling outside the record. Other professional men have answered questions— have reported on matters especially submitted to them— but, if Mr Reynolds is right, they have discreotly maintained silence on questions of much greater urgency and importance with which they have been brought face to face, but about which their opinion has not been sought. Mr Reynolds has not kept silence." Gentlemen, what- the Editor of the Chronicle called " discreetly maintained silence, I called dishonesty." What I said was correctly given in the Herald report of the meeting. "The Chairman said that some members at that table had considered Mr .Reynolds had exceeded his instructions. That was not so; aa would be seen from the letter written by their seorotary to the engineer previous to the latter entering on his duties. Had Mr Reynolds confined himself merely to questions submitted to him, and concealed matters of grave importance, he would not havo beep acting in an honesi spirit. They wore now anffering—and would suffer in the future— in consequence of the money thrown away through the dishonesty of engineers who had advised the Board previously; in that these men when advising, had concealed nr omitted to giro information which was of vital importance," The editor of the Chronicle falsely asserts from this, that I termad the following gentlemen dishonest engineers, Mr Blackett, Sir John Coode, and Mr Hassell. The engineers to whom I referred are those to whom the Chronicle applied its carious commendation. which I have quoted above— l leave it to the editor to nams them— l have but to say that my remark applieJ only to advice either omitted through incapacity or carelessness ; or to advice which was witheld for purposes not directly apparent, but from which the interests of this Board had suffered in the past and would suffer in the future. This lam prepared to prove when called on to do bo, and is a subject to whicli I shall refer later on. I shall show that probably the name of an eminent engineer has never been more maligned tlwn has that of >• ir John Coode in being connected as it has been by Mr llarr (in recent letters published in the Chronicle) with the abortive Wangamu river channel works. I shall show that Mr Blnckett in his capacity of Engineer-in-Chief vainly urged the Harbour Board and its then engineer and adviser, Mr Burr, to adopt Sir J. Coode's suggestions and to furnish the data and information ho required, Mr Hawll had no connection with the Wanganui Harbour Board till a time subsequent to tljat to which I referred. Having been a member of the Board during the time Mr Hassell was its engineer, I can say that he earned tho respect and confidence of the whole Board, and that the data collected and registered by him on many matters of primary importance to the successful projection of works for the improvement of tho navigation of this port, are almost the only reliable data in the possession of this Board. Gentlemen, I have drafted a chronological extract from the minutes of this Board from 177 to 182, that is during the time the river channel works were projected and carried out, which I now propose to read to you, and I feel sure that doing so will clow up many misconceptions whiah now exist amongrt us; and that thereby the future consideration of the business of tho Board will be facilitated. [Tho extracts referred to will appear in to-morrow'a issue.] I now formally call on the editor of the Cuuomcm to retract the defamatory assertions he made regarding my statement to this Board, The remarks I now propose to make are for the purpose of allowing the facts in connection with the projection and carrying out of the works in the river channel, from the Town Wharf to the Heads, from their inception in August, 1877, till their abandonment in January, 1882. Meßsrs Barr and Oliver were appointed engineers to the Board on June 7th, 1877. Mr Barr first attended the Board on June 21st, and' presumably then had his first look at the river. No mention Js made in the minutes of the time he was instructed to prepare a plan and estimate, but in Barr and Oliver's report it is stated that they executed a survey and made observations for tint

purpose during July and August. The Board received Barr and Oliver's report and plan, involving an estimated expendituro of .£87,000, on August; 24th, and on the 27th this report and plan were considered and adopted. It has been my fortune (or, possibly, misfortune) to read many reports on marine works carried out in the ports of many countries, but I have never met with a report so crude as that of Messrs Barr and Oliver, which dealt with such large issues and involved so great an expenditure. They were dealing with a portion of the channel close to and in connection with the - outlet of the river into the sea, ft»d yet j| they made no survey or observation's °lf the mouth; they refer to no data, ail" we know at that time no reliable data nad been collected. Their sole reference to the outlet 1 quote : " A depth of sft at low water or 13ft at high water is the capacity of the bar outside the Heads, and, taking such as our guage, we propose, in the following recommendations and estimates, to provide so that any vessel after crossing the bar may have an easy and safe course to the wharf." Gentlemen, you know how false that assumption, that the capacity of the bar was 13ft at highjwater, was; you know the variability of the depth and position of the bar channel was far greater then than now, when it is to some extent regulated by the 900 ft of training wall since built ; and yet, on this false assamption, the utility and the very reason for the construction of the works, they then advocated and planned, existed. They make no reference to the variability of the position of the bar ohannal, which was then between 2000 ft and 3000 ft from N.W. to S.E.. 'and on which the variability of the bar depth principally depended. They make no reference to the yolume of the river current, its winter and summer, or its flood and normal capacity, and their different effects on the bar depth; but they assume without any data, and without troubling to investigate, that the permanent capacity of the bar depth is 13ft at high water, and, so they admit, base all their advice, all their plans and estimates, op this false assumption. The nest important data to consider in such a work as they projected would be the surface inclination at low water or the fall in the channel they were treating. I quote from their report : " There is a fall on the low water line of lft 7in from the bridge to the Heads, giving thus an inclination of 3Jin per mile, a slope which is very favourable." This can only/ mean that the gradient from the bridge to the Heads is regnlar at 3 Jin per mile for the whole distance. Mr Haasell says, in his valuable report of May, 1885 after careful observations, made during three years : " Fall on surface of river from town to Heads at low water, spring tides, and river low, is 3ft 6in, the fall mainly being across the upper flits. Mr Leslie Reynolds says, in his report on this subject: "The surface indicacion at low^ water between the walls, from the bridge to their seaward ends at Languard Bluff, is as near as may be 2ft Bin, This, taken' as a regular gradient over the whole dis- , tance, is a heavy fall for 2} miles, hub M this fall is by no means regular. From'-^F the bridge to a distance of 1} miles the " fall is Bsin, whereas the balance — 2ft 2iin —is distributed over a- length of one ■ mile." Thus Mr Hasselra and Mr.V Reynolds' separately-xuade observations corroborate each other and condemn Mir Barr in two capital errors of the gravestmoment, to wit, Mr Haßsell makes Mr Barr's enor in his level over the whole distance lft llin, or more than double the total fall given by Mr Barr. Mr. Soynolds makes him in error over' the very part on which he constructad the trainiug walls by showing a most irregular gradient over one mile, with a fall of no less than 2ft 2}in in place of the slope' of 3Jin per mile in Bar and Oliver's I report 1 The next necessary data required would be the nature of the bottom of the channel to be dealt with. Barr and Oliver say in their report: "From borings we find that the material to be removed consists of sand and fine gravel, which will be easily moved to the deeper parts by the scour which would result from the erection of the training walls, If this alone were insufficient resort could be had to harrowing, which we have little doubt would loosen the material enough to allow the current to transport it. The amount of stuff to be moved being so small and easily worked, we would not advise the Board sfc the outset to incur the expenditure for dredging plant.". This description refers tj (I again quote) - " those portions of the walls which will *" require to be constructed at once. The largest body of this is above the Landguard Bluff at the shallows above referred to," or what we have known for co long aa the flats. Gentlemen, we don't want to quote other engineers to refute Barr and Oliver— here jvc all sadly know how erroneous this data was. The next data required to be considered in the projection of these works would be the nature and amount of the travelling silt to be controlled by the scour induced by the training walls. .Barr and Oliver say, " The extreme mobility of the sand in the .river bed renders it liable to be moved about even by ordinary tides, and much more so by floods delivered by the land. A tendency to shoal up the already deficient waterway in the neighbourhood of H to 2 miles is evident." (The fiats again,) It is possible that some of the material deposited here has been derived from the neighbourhood of the bridge, when the scour caused by the piers commenced to operate. Large quantities also find their way into the river from the sand hills in the neignV bonrhood of the town, partly by being Ti blown directly into it and partly by being carried down by the water of Churton's Creek." That is absolutely all Barr and Oliver say in their roport on this important subject. Well, gentlemen, the sand has ceased to blow from the sand hills in the neighbourhood of the town, because we have reclaimed them, and without the assistance of a report and plan from Mr Barr; but that important tributary of the Wanganui river known as Churton's Creek still continues to discharge its whole volume into it through a drain pipe, and, I fear, will for all time, according to Barr nnd Oliver, exercise a baleful influence on the river channel. No re. .r'erence is given in this report to the drainage area of the Wanganui, which Mr Hassell estimates at between 2 and 2$ million acres, No reference is made to the velocities of the current at flood and ebb tides or during flood*. No reference is made to the enormous quantities of silt transported by the river during floods which, in one instance, Mr Hassell estimates at 75,000 cubic feet per minute, enough to fill up and obliterate 600 Churton's Creeks in twelve hours; and ' no reference is made to the rainfall on the watershed, or oven that of the imme? : diate district near the river outlet. I ask is it possible that successful works could be planned and carried out on such erroneous add . such incomplete data. I know not what Mr Barr's capacities now are as a marine engineer. He has. liad plenty pf time to educate himself in his profession since, but it seems to me impossible to escape the inference that y. at the time he made this report and projected these plans, which involve the expenditure of supb, a large gum as £87,000, he was not competent to advise thu Board, which at that time appears to have had such implicit confidence in him. Uuder th6s_e circumstances I think you will agree it would have been little lees than marvellous had the river channel works proved successful instead of the miserable failure they undoubtedly are. On December 6th, 1877, a report from Barr and Oliver on the deepening of the bar was recoivod, This report, together with some other important documents, are micsing from the Board's records. I have sent to the Marine Office for copies. On January 10th, 1878, Barr and Oliver wore authorised by the Board to prepare plans and specifications for part of the works they had recommended, at an estimate of J329.686. On February 21st those plans, &c, were adopted and or- y dered to be forwarded for the governor's"' approval. On March 7th, Barr and Oliver's plans and specifications for the remainder of the works they recoilmended were adopted, Total estimate, including {fie first series I have mentioned, ,£75,527; and on the 30th of this month the Board asked the Government "1 1 that Sir J. Coode should be sent there to examino and report on the question of harbour works. It seems strange that the advipe and plans of Barr and Oliver should have been so hnViidly adopted, when it was known that this eminent engineer was in the colony, and had nearly completed his commission for the Government. On May 2nd the Board was informed that Sir J; C'oodo would

visit Wanganui. I bolieve he was here one day, and was taken down the river and over the bar, and that Barr and Olivet's plans, &c, were submitted to him. On June 6th Sir J. Coode's report •was received, dated from Auckland on his way home. On June 10th Barr and Oliver wrote to the Board and nay— " Above the Landguard Bluff the deviations he (Sir J. Coodo) recommends! are pot material, being no more than 100 ft in a width of over 1800 ft " Below the Landguard Bluff the alterations of line recommended are more material." "We .» would repret to see any alteration. " SirxJohn'., lines, however, would doubtles3 Bft^lbmething in diedging, but we do not consider it would form so good a channel ai the straight ono we have de. Bigned." [Copt of Sir J. Coode'o Report.] Auckland, 27th May, 1878. Wanganui Harbour. Having examined the plan of tho works p_ now proposed to be excuted ia the Kiver Wanganui, between Churton's Creek and the Heads, I have to recommend that the positions of the training banks bo modified to the extent indicated by tho red lines on the accompanying tracing. By the adoption of the lines I propose below Landguard Bluff the necessity for separate protective works along the river face of the South Spit will be obviated. On the tracing will also be found the lines best adapted for the river frontage between Churton's Creek and the Town Bridge. The small scale plan shows the line of river frontage between the Town Bridge and Market Jflace, and thence onward to the Railway Bridge, The line above Market Place is in fact the same as that on the plan showing the Harbour Board endowment, signed by Mi Blackett in ia 1874. No Droiecting tiers or ietties should be permitted beyond the river lines thus described. Between Churton's Creek and Market Place the river face Bhould be formed by means of sloping L banks with stone faces and upright timf ber framing as and where required for the j accommodation of vessels rather than by means of upright walls. (Pigded) Jno. Coode. At thin meeting the following momentous resolution was carried (Peat— Morgan) : —"That, having had under consideration tho report of Sir J. Coode, with accompanying plan and report by Barr and Oliver thereon, adhere to the original scheme of harbour improvement as prepared by Barr and Oliver vith the modifications i suggested in their report of 10th June, ; 1878." In this letter or report as it iB ' termed in the resolution, I can find ! nothing that can here justly he called a modification. This is the nearest and evidently what was meant. (Barr and Oliver's letter.) " If the Government, however, iitend to adopt his (Sir J, Coode'B) line in front of the town it would be advisable that the line of worke, m contract No. 3 should be so placed, that their future extension should fit in with the Government work." Let us review this extraordinary position. S\- J. Coode been asked through the Government ™6^"\>nd report. He had paid a hurried the Rite, and was farBarr and Oliver's data. There was no other, and he recommended conBiderable alterations in the lines. Hal the?e alterations been adopted it would -flisve been necessary to furnish him with data re depths, bottom, currents, &c, on the lines he recommended. This would have meant delay and the probable verification or refutation of the data given Barr and Oliver, as undoubtedly a Government engineer would have been employed. But no, the direct advice of the most eminent marine en. gineer who has ever visited tho colony was wilfully disregarded, and the woik was pushed on as though ho had never been here and had never reported. If that delay had but taken place, if people had only had time to calmly consider the position, can wo doubt that this port would hold now a different position to what it does ? With regard to those members of the Board of the day, who were answerable for this resolution (affecting as it has done not only this town but a district for a radius of 60 miles) who were administering a trust of the first and most vitil importance to this larpe aiea, can it be said they did their duty by their trust? They flouted tha Government I they had asked for the services of Sir John Coode, and they flouted his advice when they received it. They may have erred through ignorance, or other influences less pardonable may have _. Bwayed their actions. It is not for mo to ' judge, but I say this : Had I been responsible for any reason for what wi then done I Bhould be covered with selfreproach to the end of my life, and I Bhould feel that I had earned the scorn of succeeding generations. At the next meeting, July Bth, a requisition from Sir J. Oooae for the data and information ho required was considered, and a reply was sent to the Marine Department statinc that it was impossible to supply tho information till midsummer. This requisition is missing from the Board's records, so that I am unable to speak definitely on it, but the_ reply clearly shows that Sir John required much fuller data than Mr Barr had thought necessary before advising the Board. At an interview Mr Barr - told the Board that information might be obtained in about three months at a cost of abont JJ4OO, and at the following mooting he explained that even if Sir John Coode's lines were adopted for the training walls he had recommended, tho protection works at the South Spit he (Mr 2>»rr) had advised would still be necps- , Bap, y^m is the stone pitching which I wQ^iMited to cost £4500, the particuJarsoWwioh we had, you will remember, occasion to turn up some months ago and J found it cost upwards of .£6OO. This, you I will note, is in emphatic opposition to the I I most important recommendation in Sir J. Coode's report. I do not wish here to Be* refer to Mr Barr's unprofessional BH attack on Mr Reynolds— gentlemen of all BR professions will know how to estimate BJ that— but in it Mr Barr unknowingly BJ| pays a high tribute to Mr Reynolds' |H ability, for Mr jßeynolds in his report, H without ever having seen Sir John' Bra port.adopts unconsciously his very recomB* mendation; that is, that a training wall fi on the South Spit side of the channel 9 would make other protection at the Spit fl unnecessary. A deputation had been fl authorised by the Board to interview the ■ Marine Department re what was curiously ■ enough termed the departure by Sir J. ■ Coode from Barr and Olliver's lines. In ■ their report occur these pregnant senH tences : " Impressed, however, with a suefl picion that the Marine Department were H anxious for the adoption of Sir J. Coode'e HJ lines, we askeu whether Mr Blanket! fl would explain the object of the deviation ,' fl and re Sir J. Coode'B request for informafl tion, " We explained the difficulty to ncB complish the borings till next autumn." fl We have thus Mr Barr stating t-> the fl Board three months as the time required fl to answer Sir J. Coodo's reqmisition, the B Board stating to the Government, mid H summer, or six months, and the depute H tion going one better and stating autumn fl to the Marine Department During the H whole of the time that the Government H ywere pressing on »he Board to adopt Sii H J. . Cqode's advice and to furnish him witl H thp information he required, you will sei H by the extracts I have read, that contract H were being let and the works pushed o; H picli feverish haste. Finally in April H 1879, Mr Barr was eatrusted to make thi H necessary borings, soundings, &c, re H quired (not for Sir J. Coode) but that h< fl (Mr Barr) might report how far the bn fl could be improved and at what cost: M fl Barr could Jot have started on his worl H till late in May, because a letter fron B Burr and Oliver was read on the Ist o B May asking for the use of a steamer fl boats, men, and boring tools. On thi H 7th August Barr and Oliver's report H plans, and estimates for this work wer fl received. ItwillthusbeseenthatMrßai fl was able to get the data in two monthi fl in the middle of winter (for presumabl Bk^yfc took some little time to prepare plan BHB^^^^jtxiabes), which it had been pr< BBBjM^£</ipossible to get for Sir J. Cood Tne previous spring at^summor, and whic Hfl was not»f terwards attempted, despite th BJB urgency of the government adviser flfl Gentlemen, you must draw your ow HJ conclusions on this episode. I fear if HR attempted to do so, my language woul HjL be too Btrong. I suppose about Januar; BBf 1880, it was found that the scoi SB betweon the walls did not produi BB tha. effect on the flats, predicte ■HJ iv Barr and Oliver's report, f< BJB at tbis date we find the Board solemn! ■BJ passing a motion that Barr and Oliv WgM be asked to furnish a plan and ostima BB o f a harbour. In a fairly vari< BB acquantance, with reports of marine woi BH o n a large scale, this is the; fjret and on BH satauco I have met with where a barboi

has been recommended as an accßßso-y The discharge of the Wanranui at soring tide ia upwards of 1,500,000 cubic feet per minute, irrespective of freshets or floods This in slightly more than half the discharge at the navigable mouth ef the mighty Mississippi, which is upwards of of 2,900,000 cubic feet, and wh'ch directed on to ita bar by the engineering skill of Mr Eads and his resident engineer, Mr Corthotl, made a bar channel with a maxinum Bft depth, into a bar channel with a maxinum 31ft depth. What the current of the Wanganui, directed by training walls designed by Burr and Oliver, was unable to scour was sought under their direction to be accomplished by harrowing. Gentlemen, could fatuous absurdity go further than this ? What are we to think of the capacity of engineers who make such a recom. mendation ? The first harrow designed would not apparently work, for we find the Mayor and Mr Barr left to try the harrow again, with permission to order another ; this also failing Enquiries are then made re a dredge. A dredge is eventually ordered, Mr Barr's recommendations as to her make, phape, and fixings are adopted and he supervises her building, on behalf of tho Board. She arrives here minus nearly everything to mike her workable— punts, spoil boxes, and cranes have to be got, and at last she is ready for work. Gentlemen, you know the rosult ; she failed as all else had. The last effort of the Government to get the Board to adopt the course they were in duty bound to adopt at first were met by the following motions, "That the Secretary be instructed to write to the Marine Department, drawing attention to the fact that the Board doee not wish to engage Sir J. Coode as a consulting engineer," and this after the Government had consented to pay Sir J. Ooode's fee's. Gentlemen, the facts I have endeavoured to sot before you are founded on unimpeachable documentary evidence. I have, exaggerated nothing, and I have said nothing condemnatory that it has not been necessary to say to explain the history of this terrible failure and fatal blow to the present and future interests of this town and district, I have said naught in malice, for to my knowledge I have never seen Mr Barr. Let us shortly consider what might have been, had wiser councils prevailed when harbour improvement work was first under consideration in Wanganui. At that time Sir J. Coode was expected in the colony, if not already here. Ihe probable resources of the newly constructed Board for improvement work were known. Had the Board then generously asked Sir J. Coode's advice, told him the amount it had to expend, and furniahtd him with all the data he required, can it be doubted that this eminent engineer, a man of large ■ experience and broad views, would have advised the Board that it w.iuld be folly to dissipate it 3 resources on the river channel till its outlet had been first opened, till which had been done, the capabilities of the channel up to the town could not be fully known; can it be doubted he would have shown the Board it had but a short length of ohannel to control, from the Heads to the bar, and that this successfully done would put this town in possession of a port with a workable depth of between 25ft and 30ft, if not at their doors, sufficiently near for all commercul purposes, giving- as it would direct communication with the whole world. Gentlemen, had this been done instead of what was done Wanganui would have been an open port for the past ten years ; sixth in importance of all the ports in the colony. And I verily behove that tbis town and district would in consequence now have been the moat prosperous in the whole colony, because this port would serve the largest and most fet tile area. Wanganui, March 28tb, 189*.