TIMARU HARBOUR WORKS.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1880 Session I, E-02a

IL— 2a.

TIMARU HARBOUR WORKS.

(FURTHER REPORT OF THE COLONIAL MARINE ENGINEER AS TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY BUILDING A BREAKWATER AT TIMARU, AND THE FURTHER DAMAGE THAT MAY ACCRUE THEREFROM.) [In continuation of Paper B.-2.]

Presented to both Souses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

No. 1. The Colonial Marine Engineer to the Hon. the Minister having Charge of the Marine Department. Memorandum re Timaru Harbour Works. Public Works Office, Wellington, 19th August, 1880. I reported on the Timaru Harbour works on the 2nd February last, and described the nature of the damage suffered by the coast to the north of these works, and the consequent necessity for protective works to insure the safety of the railway-line. I also recommended that the further execution of the harbour works should be stopped. No action was taken in the latter direction; but a copy of the report was sent to the Timaru Harbour Board, in order that they might make such remarks and observations on it as the case might demand. The Chairman of the Harbour Board accordingly sent a reply, dated the 10th June, remarking on such portions of the report as demanded notice, and enclosing notes of evidence taken by the Board ; as also a report on the subject by the Board's engineer. On this reply I was invited to report; but, before doing so, sent a copy of it to Mr. J. H. Lowe, Engineer for Working Railways, Middle Island, in order that he might be allowed to make his remarks on it, and also that he might furnish, in support of my first report, such additional evidence as ho might have collected since his former reports on the subject. Mr. Lowe has collected additional evidence (which I felt sure would be forthcoming), showing that the work of destruction is still going on, and at such a rate as can leave no doubt on the mind of an impartial observer that the cause of it is what I before insisted on—the stoppage of the flow of shingle by the breakwater, the coast being thus deprived of its natural protection. Mr. Lowe's report, which is simply a record of observed facts, substantiated by actual and careful measurements, will obviate the necessity of my replying in detail to the numerous objections to my last report made by the Board and those gentlemen whose evidence they have incorporated in their reply. I shall therefore simply remark that I consider the additional evidence now submitted fully confirms the position I took up in my last report; and the position of affairs may be fairly stated as follows, namely : — The railway was opened for traffic between Timaru and Temuka on 26th October, 1875. From that time until September, 1878, when the breakwater was commenced, there was no expense incurred in protecting the viaducts and the shore to the north of it. Since then, and notably since the gales in June, 1879, an expenditure of £2,700 has been incurred for protective works at and near Whale's Creek ; and later, at the end of July, the inroads of the sea became so rapid that the second viaduct was in danger, and an application was made for a further sum of £1,000, the most of which has also been expended ; and further demands will doubtless be made before long. The cliffs at and near these viaducts are certainly being destroyed at a rate far beyond that of which any evidence has yet been given as relating to previous years. The shingle-beach across the Waimataitai Lagoon is steadily and surely being lessened in width at a rate that can be measured {e.g., 20,000 cubic yards in three months), and which must lead to the result before predicted. The changes in the shore-line at the cliffs and the shingle-beach are well shown in the plan attached to Mr. Lowe's report. The shingle is gradually and certainly gathering to the south of the breakwater, necessitating the removal seaward of the southern landing-service; a process which, doubtless, will have to be repeated I—E. 2a.

1880. NEW ZEALAND.

£.—2a.

before long, and from time to time : and, until the line of the shingle has advanced so far seaward as to allow it to pass the end of the breakwater, the denudation of the coast to the north must go on, and protective works and more expenditure will be required as a necessity. The close connection of these changes with the building of the breakwater is so apparent that the responsibility for the expenditure described above clearly rests with the builders of it; and a demand can therefore be fairly made on them to contribute a very large proportion, if not the whole, of the expense now devolving on the G-overnment in protecting the railway works. John Blackett, The Hon. the Minister having Charge of the Marine Engineer. Marine Department. P.S. —Attached to this are the following papers, namely ; — No. 2.—loth August, 1880: Mr. Lowe's report in reply to letter from Chairman of Timaru Harbour Board ; with plan. No. 8. —10th June, 1880: Letter from Chairman of Timaru Harbour Board to Hon. Minister of Marine, remarking on my report of 2nd February, 1880, and enclosing copies of evidence taken by the Board, copies of letters to the Harbour Board from John McGregor, Esq., C.E., and the Clerk to the Levels Road Board, also copy of a report by the Timaru Chamber of Commerce. No. 4. —Letter from Chairman of Harbour Board enclosing copy of evidence given by G-. Stumbles, Esq., contractor; also, No. 5. —Copy of a report from the engineer to the Harbour Board. J. B.

No. 2. Memoeakdum from Mr. J. H. Lowe for the Marine Engiheejj, Wellington. Report No. 4, Timaru Harbour Works. Dunedin, 10th August, 18S0. I hate perused the reply of the Timaru Harbour Board to your report on the above, together with the notes of evidence given before the committee of the Harbour Board by various witnesses, and also the report by Mr. John Goodall, engineer to the Board, on the same subject. The statements advanced by Mr. Goodall and the witnesses examined are very comprehensively summed up in the Board's letter to the Hon. the Minister of Marine, dated 10th June, 1880. The bearing of all the facts elicited is therein shown in the strongest light favourable to the views of the Board. The main fact relied upon is that the denudation of the coast by encroachment of the sea has taken place from time to time as long as the earliest settlers can remember, and in extent reaching from the Waitaki River northward to the Dashing Rocks ; and the deduction is that therefore the recurrence of such encroachments within the space indicated should not be attributable to the breakwater works. That such encroachments have occurred formerly, and in other places besides the northern vicinity of the breakwater, as described, is not denied. In my report to you of the 4th October last I remarked upon your own observations in this respect. The statements of Captain Woollcombe on the subject are of great value in enabling a just apprehension of the real position of the case to be arrived at. Captain Woollcombe gives a definite idea of the rate of encroachment upon the cliff between the present sites of the two railway viaducts in the earlier period of the settlement. A pole placed 10 feet from the edge of the cliff in 1858 was washed away three or four years afterwards, giving a rate of encroachment of 10 feet in about four years. A pole erected in another place, 4or 5 feet from the edge of the cliff, in 1858, was carried away shortly after 1869, and so determined the rate of encroachment at that place as about 5 feet in those eleven years. This gives a definite idea of the extent of encroachment in earlier times. Then, as to the more recent encroachments, you will see by a reference to my report of measurements recorded between July and December, 1879, on the same part of the coast where Mr. Woollcombe's first-mentioned pole was placed —namely, between the two railway viaducts —shows the actual encroachment in those five months to be 2-1 feet. This rapid encroachment was only stopped by the laying down of the breastwork of rubble stone. Again, the denudation of the cliff further northward is now progressing at a rate exceeding all previous observations. I have had pegs driven along this part of the coast, and measurements taken from them at various times between the 16th April last and 4th August current, the results of which are shown on the cross-sections on tracing attached hereto. It will be seen that a breadth varying from 12 feet to 27 feet of cliff, of a height varying from 14 feet to 22 feet, has been carried away in little more than three months. So greatly has the process of denudation increased, that during the fortnight between the more recent measurements there has been a loss of ground from 4 feet in some places to 10 feet in others. This is an extent of encroachment in two weeks but just past, greater than that recorded by Captain Woollcombe as taking place in eleven years between 1858 and 1569 in the immediate neighbourhood. I notice that the Harbour Board admit that some acceleration in the denudation has been caused by the breakwater. The above comparison of actual measurements taken in former and recent times shows the rate of this acceleration. The fact is not disputed that the supply of shingle is intermittent. I have observed parts of the shore some miles to the southward of the breakwater occasionally bare of shingle, or alternated with sand. This has been referred to in previous reports. I have no doubt that, if southerly winds prevail for long periods, without floods in the large shingle-carrying rivers, the supply of shingle along the coast diminishes until patches become bare; and, again, after heavy floods the beach is replenished. This, however, does not controvert the fact that there is a general supply of shingle and sand sufficient to protect the clay bluffs in a great measure; and the abrasion of the cliffs where so protected ia only occasional, limited in extent, and at isolated points. But the abrasion where the shingle has been entirely cut off, as it is to the north of the Timaru Breakwater, is continuous, rapid, and of so serious nn extent as to be beyond all comparison with the former.

2

E.—2a.

The railway from Timaru to Temuka was opened for traffic on 26th October, 1875. From that time till the commencement of the breakwater in September, 1878, there was no expense entailed for the protection of this foreshore. Prior to the gales that occurred in June, 1879, there was a beach of shingle fuljy 0 feet in depth covering the clay sub-beach ; and the high-water mark was about a chain distant from the foot of the cliff. The whole of this beach was swept away at that time. The serious encroachments about Whale's Creek and northward commenced immediately that beach was carried away, and have continued ever since, excepting where stayed by protective works. In place of the natural shingle-beach, an artificial beach of rubble-stone has been formed. This work was commenced in July, 1879, soon after the natural beach was swept away, and has been continued at intervals, as found to be required. The cost of this breastwork has been, up to the present lime, £2,700. This has protected the shore from the south end of the southern viaduct to the south end of the second viaduct. The encroachment is now proceeding so rapidly in front of the second viaduct, and along the cliff between it and the next gully, that further works have been ordered for the protection of the shore on account of the railway. It is stated that the committee have in evidence that neither the shingle-bank across the Waimataitai nor the Washdyke Lagoons has perceptibly changed. This is derived from the evidence of a witness living close to the spot. It can be readily understood that the gradual change going on is less likely to be perceived by a person seeing the place daily than by one visiting the place occasionally. It will, however, be seen by reference to the cross-sections taken in April and July of this year that the bank at the Waimataitai has very considerably decreased. The loss of material on this beach is at least 20,000 cubic yards in the three months. The accumulation of shingle to the southward of the breakwater is not so great as was anticipated ; but that is attributable to the unusually prolonged period of fine and northerly weather and the absence of large floods in the shingle-rivers. The banking-up, although less than expected, is still increasing so much as to greatly inconvenience the southern landing-service, notwithstanding that it has been removed a considerable distance seaward. At a rough estimate there has been about four acres reclaimed by the accumulation of shingle. In the reports I have made on the encroachments of the sea, I have confined myself to the discharge of my duties in seeing to the protection of the railway placed under my charge. I have nothing to do with the location of it, and doubt not the Government is advised of the reasons which led to the choice of site and the feasibility or otherwise of diverting the line awny from the shore. All these questions raised by the Board do not fall within my instructions to go into ; neither have I a desire to take up a position inimical to the interests of the Timaru Harbour Board: but I think it is better for all parties concerned that the true position of the subject should be recognized and dealt with accordingly. No arguments will stay the steady process of nature which every resident in Timaru can see gradually progressing under his eyes : on the one hand the accumulation of shingle on the south of the breakwater, gradually but inevitably closing over it; and on the other hand the denudation of the shore northward, which can only be checked at very great expense. It seems to me apparent that these two effects are now obtaining a magnitude never approached in former times, the work of years in the past being accomplished in about as many days at present; and that this change is entirely due to the complete stoppage of shingle at the Timaru Breakwater. J. Henry Lowe, Engineer for Constructed Railways, Middle Island. P.S.—Mr. Kirby's evidence on the relative cost of the Lyttelton and Timaru stone appears to be based on some understanding he has obtained of the cost of loading and haulage. How he arrived at such figures he does not state. Mr. Kirby states his price was 9s. per yard; but we have another contract after his at 7s. 6d. per yard. The cost of the Lyttelton stone, quarried, loaded, and hauled to the works, all costs and charges included, was less than the cheapest Timaru stone. As to the relative quality, there is no doubt the Timaru is the better stone for house-building, but it is inferior for the purpose of resisting the actiou of the sea, as any person can see for himself by inspecting the stones as they lie side by side on the beach. Every stone with edges rounded oft" is from Timaru quarries, and those with sharp, defined edges are from Lyttelton. The Timaru stone loses all its edges by wear in three or four weeks ; the Lyttelton shows no sign of wear in as many months. The Lyttelton stone being just now less easily procured than formerly, we are calling for tenders for a farther supply of Timaru stone. Tenders have been called for in such a manner as to allow of competition between the large and small quarries, whether near or remote from the works. A. very full opportunity is therefore given to the Timaru quarry-owners to show whether they are prepared to supply stone of required size at a reasonable price.—J.H.L.

No. 3. The Chairman, Timaru Harbour Board, to the Hon. the Minister of Marine. Sir,— Timaru, 10th June, 1880. In compliance with a letter received from your office, covering a copy of Mr. Blackett's report respecting certain damage to the railway, and stated to have been occasioned by the Timaru Breakwater, and in which letter you desire the Timaru Harbour Board to submit any remarks that they might wish to make thereon to the Government, the Board has the honor to lay before you the following reply from the committee appointed by the Timaru Harbour Board to report thereon :— The committee, having taken the evidence of Captain B. Woollcombe, R.N., Captain Cain, Messrs. H. J. Scaly, P. W. Stubbs, W. Jones, and Samuel Kirby, has to report that, from the personal knowledge of the earlier settlers and residents here, dating as far back as 1857 and 1858, current to the present time, a serious and continuous encroachment of the sea on the coast-line has been going on on many parts of the whole coast from the Waitangi northwards to the Dashing liocks, situated about a

3

E.—2a.

mile and a half north of Titnaru, amounting in some places, as shown by the evidence of Mr. H. J. Scaly to four or five chains since 1803. That the abrasion of the coast near "Whale's Creek and further north was especially noticed, and, long before the breakwater was commenced, had necessitated the removal of the telegraph-poles further inland more than once. This refers to the sites between the present viaducts. Further to the north this encroachment and action of the sea had brought down, and still continues to bring down, the clift' far inland of where Captain Woollcombe's early survey-pegs had been placed. Evidence also shows that a continuous supply of shingle was not, and is not, invariably maintained on the beach; but that this frequently alternated with sand, not only here, but as far north as the Ashburton and Waikanui Creek, if not to the liakaia. This proves conclusively that the shingle is in no way the protective power asserted by Mr. Blackett. The evidence further shows unanimously that these railway works, viaducts, &c, were erected in a most unfit and dangerous situation; and, whilst admitting that some acceleration in the denudation had been caused by the breakwater, it is clearly shown that it would be a mere matter of time, either to protect this part of the railway by the construction of powerful works, or for the utter destruction of the same by the sea. But the evidence of Mr. John McGregor (engineer to the Oamaru marine works) and of the Board's engineer, Mr. John Goodall, borne out by the opinion of almost all practical men here, shows that the breakwater, when carried out, will in itself fully protect this part of the railway ; and, as shown by further evidence, the dolorite formation from and beyond the Dashing Rocks to the northern part of the Waimaitaitai Lagoon will protect that part of the coast. It is also shown that the originally-intended railway-line was laid off further inland, and that the said creek (Whale's Creek) was, in the times of the earlier settlers, an inlet of the sea, only crossable by drays at half-tide. Evidence also shows that Mr. Lowe had in contemplation, and had plans drawn out for, the protection of the railway-line by a sea-wall, extending from the present railway goods-shed to George Street or beyond. This was considered necessary by the denudation of that part of the beach before the construction of the breakwater; but the construction of the same, by retaining the shingle, has obviated this (then necessary) work, and saved a very heavy outlay to the Government, surpassing what has been or may be required to the north. The committee would also point out that the very heavy outlay for stone brought down from Lyttelton or Christchurch for the protection of these viaducts might have been materially reduced by using the local stone, which is of a far better quality, and may be obtained at a much cheaper rate. Th;s is shown by the evidence of Messrs. H. J. Scaly and S. Kirby, taken by this committee, and by the report laid before the Chamber of Commerce. The committee scarcely thinks that the assertion made by Mr. Blackefct that this breakwater would affect the whole coast-line to Lake Ellesmere or beyond, requires an answer, and would merely refer to what has been stated before in reference to the occasional alternation of shingle and sand along the coast. Mr. Blackett infers in his report that only plans for a solid breakwater were laid before the Commissioners. On referring to the report of the said Commissioners to the Government it will be found that they had Sir John Coode's plan before them, took evidence thereon, and, furthermore, that they in the report give their reasons, strong and cogent, for objecting to this plan, and advocating that of a solid structure; also in their second report, which Mr. Blackett ignores altogether, they recommend the continuance of the solid structure. Mr. Blackett comments on members in the Commission appointed for the purpose of deciding on the plan to be adopted for harbour-construction. This appointment was made, entirely outside of the Harbour Board's knowledge or influence, by the Government, whose selection of members the Board has no reason to doubt was made from good grounds; and the conduct of the Commission when in Tirnaru, carefully examining all the plans and data connected with the subject, and deciding on the plan which has been carried out, and the success which has attended the work in all its stages, are ample refutation of the inference which Mr. Blackott wishes to be drawn as to the ability and judgment of the gentlemen referred to. The committee would further point out that, from the knowledge of gentlemen now on the Harbour Board, and who were appointed as a deputation to Wellington before the passing of the Timaru Harbour Act, the clause inserted in the Act authorizing the appointment of Commissioners by the Governor for the approval or otherwise of plans for such works at Timaru, was inserted on account of Mr. Carruthers having prejudged and being antagonistic to all such works; and he, having expressed his opinion thereon, was not considered a fit person to act as referee when the whole question was to be reconsidered. The committee have in evidence also that neither the shingle-banks across the Waimaitaitai or Washdyke Lagoons have perceptibly changed. In reference to Sir John Coode's later report, Mr. Blackett, in his report, in the clause commencing, "Sir John Coode, taught by a life-long experience," &c, says, "But, on this fact being brought to the notice of Sir John Coode, the latter felt that the objection might be just, and thought that all the facts of the case should bo referred to the consideration of a third party of engineering celebrity before any rash steps were taken." The committee have had these papers from Sir John Coode before them, and what he did say is, "The line of action I have to suggest for your consideration is—Ist, to forward this letter with its enclosures, or a copy, to Mr. Cai-ruthers for any comments which he may have to make thereon ; 2nd, should Mr. Carruthers's opinion still remain adverse to the success of the works, then I would suggest that the opinion of another engineer—say Sir John Hawkshaw — should be solicited;" and the committee cannot but consider this as a reaffirmation by Sir John Coode of his previous views, and an appeal to Sir John Hawkshaw to bear him out. Taking what has been stated into consideration, the committee begs respectfully to say that it considers Mr. Blackett's report most exaggerated, one-sided, and unreliable, in that the damage to the viaducts has not been caused to any extent by the breakwater, but is a natural consequence of the false position of that part of the railway, and of the general wearing-away of the coast; also, that the

4

E.—2a.

breakwater will be a protection to the railway when carried out, and in the meantime the same can be protected at a comparatively moderate cost. Fulbeet Abcher, W. C. Beswick, J. H. Suttek, W. Moody, Wm. Evans, T. W. Hall, Members of Committee. The Board has the honor also to hand you the evidence taken by the committee ; copy of a letter received from the Levels ltoad Board ; and a reply from John Goodall, Esq., C.E., to Mr. Blackett's report. I. have, &c, Fulbert Archer, The Hon, the Minister of Marine, Wellington. Chairman, Timaru Harbour Board.

Enclosure 1 in No. 3. EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OP THE TIMARTJ HARBOUR BOAED APPOINTED TO REPLY TO MR. BLACK ETT'S REPORT. Captain Belfield Woollcombe, E.N. I hate resided in Timaru for the past twenty-three years. In April, 1858, I was instructed by the Provincial Government to survey the harbour. To do so I placed two flag-poles —one on the cliff between the first and second railway viaducts, in Caroline Bay; the other I put up on the eastern end of the northern boundary-line of the Maori reserve, Caroline Bay, where there was a survey-peg. I placed the first flag-pole about 10 feet from the edge of the cliff. About three or four years afterwards however, it was taken away by the encroachments of the sea. On the 24th May, 1869, at the time the ship " Collingwood" was wrecked on the beach, about 200 yards to the north of the Maori reserve, the site of the peg that I had previously placed on the Maori reserve boundary was nearly taken away by the cliff, which had been undermined by the sea, falling. The whole of the site of the peg very shortly after 1869 was completely removed, this peg having been originally placed about four or five feet from the edge of the cliff. Now, however, about 14 feet past the peg has disappeared. On the survey-map, Perry's fence is supposed to be placed 100 feet from high-water mark, but, as I believe that 100 feet still remain between the fence and high-water mark, I do not think that the fence can have been correctly placed on the plan. I perfectly recollect the time when where the viaduct at Whale's Creek now is, was an inlet of the sea, and was only crossable at half-tide. I have seen the sea in bad weather run over the site of the present main road, which was raised when made to keep the sea out; and, having always lived to the northward of this spot, I have had daily opportunities for observing the changes which have taken place. I consider that the viaducts as placed were not safe from the action of the sea. When Mr. Tancred was surveying for the railway 1 understood that the line was to cross the road a little to the south of Whale's Creek, and to run through Mr. Perry's land, returning then to the first cutting north of the viaducts ; and I know at the time that Mr. Henry Le Cren, who was then the owner of Perry's land, was making arrangements to give up what land would be required for the railway. This was in the year 1871. I recollect that there was a general objection to the railway being made on the beach both at Whale's Creek and at the landing-services, and that the line laid oif by the Provincial Government was intended to go through Le Cren's land about three chains inland from the present viaduct, then coming out through a cutting in the main South Jioad, about opposite Evans's store, and going past the present site of the Club Hotel, in George Street. The plans were afterwards altered to as at present carried out, and I believe that it was done by Mr. Carruthers's authority. The beach, at the W Taimataitai Lagoon is about twenty chains from my residence, and I own the land bordering on the lagoon. The beach on the sea side of the lagoon has not decreased or changed perceptibly since the breakwater has been constructed. During the time that I have known it, it has varied from shingle to sand and from sand to shiDgle, according to the weather. At the time of the sitting of the Royal Commission on the Timaru Harbour works, I was examined by the Commissioners respecting Sir John Coode's pLin, which was then under consideration. B. Woollcombe, Betired Commander, E.N.

Captain Henry Cain. I HATE resided in Timaru for upwards of twenty-three years. For years after my arrival in Timaru the then main road ran a quarter of a mile inland, the present road being only a track, and not used. It ran across the mouth of Whale's Creek; and in heavy weather the sea made a clean breach up the creek, depositing kelp some distance above the present road. At the north side of the creek there was a clay bank, extending about two chains to seaward of the present viaduct, on which the whalers formerly had their tripods fixed to try out oil. Since that time and up to the present the sea has been continuously encroaching upon the land, the clay bank having been gradually washing away from my earliest recollection. The site upon which the tripods above referred to stood disappeared many years prior to the erection of the viaduct. I might also state that the telegraph-poles at this spot have been twice shifted inland since the telegraph-line was first constructed, owing to encroachments. lam satisfied that, even if the breakwater had not been constructed, the viaduct at Whale's Creek could not have withstood the action of the sea without protective works ; and I fully indorse the statements made by Mr. Woollcombe as regards the continual encroachments of the sea. 1 would further remark that the railway, from Strathallan Street to the north of Patiti Point, a distance of over a mile, would have had to have been protected had it not been for the accumulation of shingle caused by the breakwater ; also that Mr, Lowe, at a general meeting held at Timaru about two years ago, produced a set of plans for

5

E.—2a.

6

a breastwork from the railway goods-shed to George Street, a distance of about thirty chains, which he considered necessary for reclamation and protection purposes, the necessity for this expensive work having been obviated by the accumulation of shingle caused by the breakwater. I know from experience that the sea is encroaching upon the land by washing away the banks in heavy weather from the Waitaki northwards along the coast. Henry Cain.

P. W. Stubbs, Esq., Secretary to the Geraldine County Council. I have resided in Canterbury for the last twenty-seven years. In the early days I was in the habit of travelling from the north southwards. There were then no roads, and we had to come along the Ninetymile Beach. I noticed on each occasion that there was a sandy beach between the llakaia and the Waikanui Creek. I have also observed that the shingle-bank protecting; the Washdyke Lagoon lias been increasing in width, and I believe that it is now two or three chains wider than it was when I first saw it iv 1853. F. W. Stubbs.

Henry John Scaly, Esq., Licensed Surveyor. As surveyor for the Government in 1861 I made a survey of the coast-line from the Waitaki to the Waiho. I have subsequently been over the same line, and have found that the sea has encroached considerably, washing away the cliff in some places as much as five or six chains in depth, and extending north from the mouth of the Waitaki about six miles, the shingle washed down by the "Waitaki not being sufficient to protect the coast from the encroachments of the sea. I have noticed the same effect on the shinglo-clilf between the mouth of the Otaio and the mouth of the Pareora. Also, that siuce 1863 and up to the time of the commencement of the breakwater, the sea has been gradually encroaching upon the land to the north of Whale's Creek; and I beg to state that protection to the. viaducts would have been necessary even if no breakwater had been constructed. With reference to the stone used for the protection of the viaducts, I assert that, notwithstanding Mr. Lowe's statement to the contrary, stone of a better quality than that which has been obtained from Lyttelton can. be obtained in Timaru, and of a size anything up to 5 tons weight. Henry J. Scaly.

Samuel Kirby. I have been a quarryman at Timaru for six years, and have been all my life engaged in stone-quarries. I have examined the stone which has been brought from Lyttelton to protect the railway viaduct: it is of a very brittle nature, and not calculated to bear either weight or concussion. I consider it far inferior to stone in the immediate neighbourhood of Timaru; and, understanding that the minimum cost at which stone can be brought here from Lyttelton is ]2s. 6d. a yard, exclusive-of a charge for loading, say 2s. a yard, I am prepared to say that a better stone could bo provided here in any quantity, and, with the proper appliances for lifting, of any-sized block up to 10 tons, at a reduction of 4s. Gd. a yard. I have already supplied the Government with about 2,000 yards of stone from my quarry, for the protective works at the viaduct, at the rate of 70 yards a day, and at the above-mentioned price of 9s. a yard, the stone having been approved of by Mr. Lowe for the purpose. 1 have also sent from my quarry bluestone for building purposes up to a size of 22 cubic feet to Christchurch. S. H. Kirbt.

William Jones, contractor, Timaru. I was one of the sub-contractors for the construction of the railway near Whale's Creek, and recollect that the question of building a sea-wall instead of a viaduct was under consideration, and that I was asked to give a price for the construction of the sea-wall. William Jones.

John Goodall, civil engineer. I have carefully examined the coast to the north of Waimataitai Lagoon, and found that it is bounded by a compact bed of dolorite; so that if the spit at the mouth of the lagoon was at any time washed away by the sea the adjoining lands could not bo encroached upon. I am firmly of opinion that when the entire breakwater works are completed the viaducts at Whale's Creek will be in a great measure protected, and they will be more secure from encroachment than they have ever been before the breakwater works were begun. John Goodall, C.E., Engineer, Timaru Harbour Board.

Enclosure 2 in No. 2. Extract from Letter received by the Timaru Harbour Board from John McGregoh, Esq., C.E., and dated at Dunedin, 2nd June, 18S0. " I hat, however, state for the information of the Board that I see no very serious danger likely to be sustained by the railway works in consequence of the construction of the Timaru Breakwater ; but, on the contrary, when the harbour scheme is completed very great protection will be given to the northern foreshore of Caroline Bay, along which the railway runs."

Enclosure 3 in No. 2. Extract from the Timaru Herald. A special meeting of the Timaru Chamber of Commerce was held on the 4th June. There was a good attendance of members. Mr. F. Archer presided.

7

E.—2a.

Hallway Protection Works. A report on the comparative cost, &c, of supplying stone to the railway protective works at Whale's Creek, was submitted by the sub-committee (Messrs. Kutherfurd, Scaly, and lloberts) appointed by the Chamber to draw up the same. The report, which was dated 29th April, was read by the Secretary as follows: — " Report of Sub-Committee appointed by the Timaru Chamber of Commerce to draw up a statement of the comparative cost, fyc, of supplying Stone to the Railway Protective Works at Whale's Creek, Timaru. " The sub-committee have to report that they examined the above works with the view of comparing the strength, durability, and general suitability of the rock brought from Officers' Point, in Lyttelton Harbour, with the local stone as previously supplied to the Government, and in doing so have to meet the following assertions made in favour of the Lyttelton stone —namely : (1) That it costs the Government nothing ; (2) that it is procured in larger blocks than the local stone ; (3) that it ia harder, and resists the action of the sea better than the local stone. " With regard to the first point we have ascertained' — (a) That the Government pays for the stone delivered in trucks at Lyttelton ss. per yard ; (J) the cost of carriage to Timaru at ordinary rates would be £1 3s. 6d. per yard ; (c) the cost of labour, putting on site, say Is. per yard : making a total cost on the site (if usual rates are charged against the maintenance of [Railways Department), £1 9s. 6d. per cube yard. Or, merely allowing for wear and tear of rolling-stock, the cost will stand thus — (a) Cost of stone at Lyttelton, as above, ss. per yard; (b) wear and tear of rolling-stock, &c, cannot be put less than 6s. 6d. per yard; (c) labour putting on site, Is. per yard, making the total minimum cost 12s. 6d. per cubic yard. " With regard to the second assertion, we find that blocks can be and have been supplied fully as large as any of those brought from Lyttelton; and we also find, from actual inspection, that, whereas a large proportion of the Lyttelton blocks get broken and crushed up in rolling into position, nothing of the kind can be observed in respect of the blocks locally supplied. "As to the third assertion, from several inspections made by us we find that, so far from the Lyttelton stone resisting the action of the sea better than the local, the opposite is plainly indicated. Some of the Lyttelton blocks have already been much worn and grooved by the action of the sea, and others have scaled and cracked to pieces, apparently by the mere action of the weather ; whereas the exceeding toughness of the local stone is such that it is simply rounded off without fracturing. Besides this, where the latter has been a considerable time in position under the southernmost viaduct, the action of the sea has packed it nearly as compact as if purposely built by manual labour, obtaining thereby a greater resisting power to the action of the waves. We should also add that we find by actual experiment that a heavy sea will have the effect of splitting up the Lyttelton rocks into spalls by the mere concussion of one block against another. "In addition to the unquestionable superiority of the local stone for the purpose under consideration, we find that the comparative cost stands thus : ordinary cost of rock from Lyttelton, '£1 9s. 6d. per yard ; estimated minimum cost, 12s. 6d. per yard : cost of local stone of equal size, 9s. per yard. "We believe it has been stated that 'the Government would have had to send the trucks down to Timaru empty if not loaded with stone.' But the increased wear and tear, both of the line and of the trucks, in bringing the stone would be at least equal to the rate mentioned above, so that this argument has really no force, if used, in favour of the carriage of rock from Lyttelton. "In conclusion, we estimate that the extra cost incurred by the Government in using Lyttelton stone for the works referred to cannot have been less than £500 up to date, while the loss to the district has amounted to at least £1,200." Several samples of stone were laid on the table. One specimen was very friable, mottled in colour, and resembling a mere indurated clay. Another was of uniform dark colour, and broke with a clean but irregular fracture, but splintered rather easily at the edges. A third was a piece of coarse shingle concrete of indifferent quality. These had all come from Lyttelton. A fourth specimen was a piece of the local dolorite rock, and, though not of the hardest of the local rocks, compared very favourably in respect of this quality with the better of the two specimens from Lyttelton. Mr. Woollcombe moved, Mr. Bruce seconded, and it was carried unanimously, " That the report of the sub-committee be forwarded as early as possible to the Government, with samples of each sort of stone; that the Timaru Harbour Board be informed of the action taken by this Chamber ; and that copies of the report be sent to the members for the South Canterbury districts."

Enclosure 4 in No. 3. The Levels Eoad Board to the Timahu Haebouk Boaed. Gentlemen,—_ Timaru, 9th June, 1880. I am instructed by the Levels Eoad Board to forward you the following copy of a resolution passed at their meeting held yesterday —namely : — " That this Board desires to support the action of the Harbour Board in rebutting the report of Mr. Blackett with regard to the damage done to the railway at Caroline Bay; and, as the site in question is within the Levels District, this Board is in a position to state that Mr. Blackett's report is entirely contrary to local knowledge and experience. And that a copy of this be forwarded to the Chairman of the Harbour Board." I have, &c. William T. Baenett, The Chairman and Members, Timaru Harbour Board. . Clerk to Board,

E.—2a.

No. 4. The Chairman", Timaru Harbour Board, to the Hon. the Minister, of Marine. Sir,— Timaru, 14th June, 1880. I have the honor to hand you the evidence of Mr. George Stumbles, who was absent from Timaru at the time of the sitting of the committee appointed by this Board to reply to Mr. Blackett's report. As the evidence given by Mr. Stumbles is considered by the Board to be of importance, I have the honor to request that you will cause the supplementary sheets enclosed to be attached to the evidence already sent. I have, &c, EULEERT AECHEIt, The Hon. the Minister of Marine, Wellington. Chairman, Timaru Harbour Board.

Enclosure in No. 4. Evidence of George Stumbles (of the firm of Allan and Stumbles, Contractors for the Timaru Eailway in October, 1871). At the time of my contract for the construction of the line of railway near Timaru in 1871 I pointed out to Mr. Selby Tancred, District Engineer, that I considered that a breastwork, either of sheet-piling or of stonework, would be necessary for the protection of the viaduct and approaches at Whale's Creek. My reason for doing so was that whilst I was building the viaducts I have seen, after a few days' heavy sea, I should think as much as a hundred yards at a time of the clay banks between the viaducts fall into the sea. I also noticed the shingle at the site of the viaducts removed; and the waves on several occasions washed over the works. Further northward, on the foreshore of the Maori reserve, I have seen many much heavier falls than at Whale's Creek, hundreds of tons of clay coming down at a time. This was whilst I was constructing the railway. The sea used to break heavily about eight chains to the north of the Government landing-service, taking away large parts of the clay bank from two to three chains in length. This part was in 1872 strongly recommended to be protected by a breastwork. It is, however, now, I believe, quite sheltered by the breakwater. Before the breakwater was constructed a heavy sea at times ran in between the reefs and encroached upon the land immediately to the south of the Government landing-service, which is now protected by sheet-piling. Seas fully as heavy come in at this channel as at the viaduct at Whale's Creek, and I consider that sheet-piling would have been sufficient for the protection of the viaducts. G. Stumbles.

No. 5. Mr. John Goodall, C.E., to the Chairman, Timaru Harbour Board. Sir,— Timaru, 10th June, 1880. I have the honor to inform you that I have carefully perused the report of Mr. Blackett, the Colonial Marine Engineer, as to the damage caused by building a breakwater at Timaru, and the future damage that may accrue therefrom, and find that it is based not so much upon personal observation as upon the observations of Mr. J. H. Lowe, the Resident Engineer of Railways, and upon the construction that he (Mr. Blackett) puts on the reports of Mr. Carruthers, the late Engineer-in-Ohief, and that of Sir John Coode. He says of Mr. Lowe's report that " a perusal of these reports shows the prejudicial action of the breakwater in so strong a light that there need now be no uncertainty in the mind of any one who is capable of justly estimating the importance of the facts therein recorded." This assertion might have carried weight were it not that the facts therein recorded are not exactly as Mr. Lowe has represented them to be ; and the statement that before any breakwater was erected the sea-beach was covered with " a coating of shingle of such a breadth, depth, and quantity as to act as a protection to the softer parts of which the beach on which it lay was composed," is not borne out by the observations of all the old residents of Timaru, who, in their evidence taken by the Harbour Board, state that this beach has been frequently detiuded of shingle, and also that, in spite of the supposed protection the clothing of shingle gives to the beach, yet the degradation of the beach has always been going on, and the cliff's have been wearing away, ever since any one has observed them, and certainly before the breakwater was begun. Mr. Blackett then goes on to describe what he supposes would be the future action by saying that " the spits or beaches across the mouths of the lagoons will disappear, and the railway embankments across these lagoons will be laid open to the attacks of the sea. This action will not be confined to the locality of Timaru :it will be felt in due course of time (shorter or longer according to circumstances) along the whole stretch of coast-line to Lake Ellesmere, making changes the nature but not the full extent of which caii readily be foreseen." And, quoting from Mr. Carruthers, he says: "The shingle being thus stopped, it would collect on the south side of the breakwater, until in course of time it had pushed out to the end of the latter, when the northerly motion would begin again. In the meantime the shingle to the north, beyond the protecting influence of the breakwater, would have been still moving northwards. As no new shingle could come to supply the place of that which had moved on, the coast would soon be bare, and the sea would begin to cut down the sub-beach." " The first effect of the above works would be the degradation of the coast to the north." " The detached shingle-beach across the Washdyke Lagoon would next begin to disappear." How far this gloomy picture is borne out by Mr. Carruthers will best be seen by quoting further from Mr. Carruthers than Mr. Blackett has done. Mr. Carruthers, in describing what would be the effect of a solid breakwater, after saying, " The first effect of the above works would be the degradation of the coast to the north," goes on to state that " Caroline Bay would be deepened unless the bottom is rock, and would extend somewhat further inland at Mr. Henry John Le Cren's ; but it is so well protected by the rocky capes on both sides that no great change would take place there. The detached shingle-beach across Washdyke Lagoon would next begin to disappear, #nd it would take many years before this supply was exhausted, so that there could be no effect on

8

E.—2a.

the coast further northward." It will be seen that Mr. Blackett leaves out the protection afforded by the rocky capes, and that there could be no effect on the coast further northward: this is very different from imagining that the effect would extend to Lake Ellesmere. Surely Mr. Blackett is aware that there are many large shingle-bearing rivers to the north of Timaru, which carry very much larger quantities of shingle to the sea than the Waitaki does, and so would make up for any deficiency that might be caused by the action of the breakwater. I think it is very problematical if any of the Waitaki shingle reaches as far north as the mouth of the Opihi, excepting in the shape of sand. So much for the effect that might be produced. We now come to Mr. Blackett's next quotation from Mr. Carruthers :" I strongly recommend the Board not to undertake the work, notwithstanding the great benefit which a harbour at Timaru would cause to the rich surrounding country." There is only one meaning that can be attached to this, placed as it has been by Mr. Blackett, and that is that Mr. Carruthers recommended the Board not to undertake the works, because he feared the effects of the scour on the coast to the north. If the preceding part of the clause had not been left out, Mr. Carruthers's meaning would have come out in a different light. The original stands thus: "In the meantime the shingle from the south would have been heaping up behind the breakwater. It is quite impossible to say how long it would be before, it would reach the end, but eventually it would certainly do so: a new breakwater seawards would then be required. I consider it so probable that this would happen within a few years that I strongly recommend the Board not to undertake the work, notwithstanding the great benefit which a harbour at Timaru would cause to the rich surrounding country." Mr. Carruthers's meaning is very plain: he only fears that the shingle would reach the end of the breakwater, and so necessitate its extension, within a short time ; and therefore recommended the Board not to undertake the work. Mr. Blackett goes on to say that Mr. Carruthers, and, later, Sir John Coode, have been emphatic in the expression of their views as to the bad effects of stopping the flow of shingle; and that Mr. Balfour fully appreciated the difficulty of dealing with the moving shingle, and so advocated a detached breakwater to allow the shingle to pass through. This is in keeping with the previous remarks ; for, from their report, Mr. Carruthers, Sir John Coode, and Mr. Balfour advocated not stopping the shingle, not on account of what might be the effect on the shore to the north from want of sningle, but on account of what might be the effect of the accumulated shingle on the works. Again, it is mentioned that, "Sir John Coode, taught by a life-long experience, provided no less an opening than 900 feet before he proposed to begin the solid work of the breakwater, thinking (although he had not seen the place) that this was sufficient. But, on this fact being questioned by Mr. Carruthers, on 24th October, 1876, and his criticism being brought to the notice of Sir John. Coode, the latter felt that the objection might be just, and begged that all the facts of the case should be referred to the consideration of a third party of high engineering celebrity, before any rash steps were taken." In justice to Sir John Coode, I shall give his own words from his report: ''Should Mr. Carruthers's opinion still remain adverse to the success of the works, then I would suggest that the opinion of another engineer—say Sir John Hawkshaw —should be solicited." I cannot see from this that Sir John Coode felt that Mr. Carruthers's objection might be just; he merely, in deference to Mr. Carruthers's high standing as an engineer in the colony, wishes the difference to be settled. Sir John Coode does not in the slightest waver from his opinion. Mr. Blackett goes on to state that " the promoters, anxious, apparently, to have a harbour of some sort as quickly as possible, and also to avoid the large expense and delay of building such a breakwater as designed by Sir John Coode, sought the special aid of the Legislature to assist them in building a les3 costly structure —a solid breakwater, in fact, attached to the shore. Accordingly, a clause was inserted in ' The Timaru Harbour Board Act, 1870,' by which any proposal for such a work, instead of being submitted to the scrutiny of the ordinary Government engineers, who were known to be averse to such a structure being erected, should be approved by a Commission appointed by the Q-overnor ; and this legislation was confirmed by 'The Harbours Act, 1878,' which specially provided for such a Commission, although all other harbour works would be dealt with in the ordinary way by the officers of the Government." The Harbour Board did wish to have a harbour, not of some sort, but of a substantial and permanent character; and the aid of the Legislature was sought, not to set aside the plans of Sir John Coode, as proved by the action of the Commission, who took into consideration, along with those of others, the plans of Sir John Coode, and set them aside on account of their great cost, the delay that would ensue from building such a breakwater —as it could not have been utilized until nearly completed—and for the reasons so pointedly brought forward by Mr. Carruthers, that such a breakwater would cause the shingle to bank up inside the harbour; which latter objection was strongly urged by many whose evidence was laken by the Commissioners. The Government of the day, in justice to the requirements of Timaru, did not include in the Commission the ordinary Government engineers, who were '; known to be averse to such a structure being erected." How could the Government do otherwise, unless they had delioerately determined to deprive Timaru of the slightest chance of having any harbour works whatever? Mr. Blackett goes on to slate : "The result is now a matter of history. The Commission was appointed, and plans for a solid breakwater were laid before those composing it. The Commission, composed of gentlemen having no special experience in marine engineering, affecting to ignore or undervalue the importance attached to tho movement and quantity of shingle, so strongly insisted on by engineers, approved of certain plans submitted ; and here is the result —a solid breakwater in course of erection, attended with all the bad results anticipated." The matter of history is that a structure, in spite of great difficulties, has been begun, and is now being successfully carried out, and, instead of being attended with all the bad results anticipated, is already beginning to protect the shore to the north, which protection will extend as the breakwater advances, until tho viaducts at Whale's Creek and lands adjoining will bo more securely protected from the action of the waves than they ever were before the breakwater was begun. In this opinion 1 am supported by Mr. John McGregor, C.E., engineer to theOamaru Harbour Board. Mr. Blackett is wrong in inferring that only plans for a solid breakwater were laid before the Commission: plans of nil kinds, eleven in number, were laid before them. The gentlemen of the Commission, although supposed by Mr. Blackett to have no special experience in marine engineering, were 2— E. 2a.

9

E.—2a.

selected by Government as the best authorities that could be obtained, and free from bias, and they can well bear comparison with any in the colony with respect to their experience, ability, and aptitude for the duties assigned to them. They did not affect to ignore the shingle, but carefully took all the evidence that was available, and came to a decision for a solid breakwater, believing that the amount of shingle travelling was not so great as generally represented and reported upon ; and the result bears out their judgment, for the amount of shingle accumulated to the south of the breakwater is small compared to what was expected, and it is not following up the work as fast as it is constructed, as asserted by some engineers that it would, nor in the manner represented in the drawings attached to Mr. Lowe's reports —it is now left far behind. Mr. Blackett goes on to state that the Harbour Board should be held liable for the protection of the beach and railway works north of the breakwater. It would be well worth considering if the railway were placed in the position it should have been, and whether the railway engineers were not to blame for carrying the line in such close proximity to the sea against prevalent popular opinion. Under these circumstances whose is the responsibility? And is Mr. Blackett justified in his recommendation to " stop the building of the breakwater at once, and afterwards to remove or break it up, so as to lessen its prejudicial effect on the beach, the adjoining lands, and the railway works to the north." ? That is, to destroy a useful undertaking, and to keep back a thriving township—the natural outlet of one of the finest agricultural and pastoral districts in New Zealand —and to deprive a coast of 150 miles of a harbour refuge where it is much needed ; and all this sacrifice for a few chains of railway that has been injudiciously laid out, and which would soon be effectually protected by the very works which Mr. Blackett wishes to destroy. I have, &c, John Goodall, C.E., The Chairman, Timaru Harbour Board. Engineer, Timaru Harbour Board.

By Authority: Giobsi Didsbubt, Government Printer, Wellington. —1880. Price, 9d.]

10