The Evening Star SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3279, 23 August 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, AUGUST 23, 1873.

It is very evident a general impression is gaining ground that we are not making the best of our natural advan-tages-in Duuecjin, and that vessels of large tonnage should be loading and delivering in our local Bay ipstead of at Port Chalmers. It is surprising that this idea has lain so long dormant, for it is not a new one. It has been spoken of by engineers; and mercantile men have been fully aware of the advantage derivable from such a plan, but it has appeared the cheapest and best to join Port Chalmers with Dunedin by a railway, so that existing natural advantages may be utilised to the utmost. On Thursday evening Mr Balfour’s report was referred to, and Mr Gillies read copious extracts from it. In fact, Mr Balfour reported twice on the matter: once in reference to the sanitary effect of deepening the Harbor, and subsequently on the possibility of making it available for bringing the largest vessels that can enter the Heads up to Dunedin. In his last report, in 1865, he pointed out that with proper plant he was of opinion a deep water channel might have been made in perhaps less time than a railway could be constructed to Port Chalmers. In sixteen months a channel 16 feet deep at high water, and 150 feet wide, could be formed, and in four years a channel 21 feet deep at high water, with certain plant, or, if the power were doubled, in two years. The cost was estimated at £IIB,OOO, but that sum did not include wharf accommodation. But prior to that period, an engineer of scarcely less ability, though perhaps through some fatality, not so much appreciated, Mr Swver, proposed a plan of reclamation and dock construction that should not be lost sight of. In estimating the possibilities and advantages of certain courses of action, we are too apt to consider one phase of a subject only, as was done at the meeting on Thursday night. It is perfectly true that Mr Balfour estimated the cost of a deep water channel at the amount stated, hut that is only one branch of the subject. Mr Swver’s proposal suggests another. Suppose the channel made, what next 1 ? In the first place, will shipowners allow large and valuable vessels to come up to Dunedin,loaded with heavy cargoes, and, when they arrive, to risk being strained and damaged by lying aground some eighteen hours out of the twenty-four? It must be remembered that Mr Balfour’s estimate only provides for 21 feet water at high tide, and consequently almost as soon as berthed the ship must take the ground through the fall in the tide.

We have been told that no objection would be raised to such a berth, if there were some six feet of soft mud to sink into. It therefore depends upon the nature of the bottom whether dredging a channel 21 feet deep would effect the desired purpose. Mr Balfour was so sensible of this that he urged upon the Provincial Government the absolute necessity for a survey of the harbor. In the absence of such a survey, he said it was “ dangerous to express decided opinions on such questions as the form which reclamation at Dunedin should assume.” In devising any scheme whatever for making Dunedin a port, this should be borne in mind. Just as it was unwise for a public meeting to pronounce an opinion upon a particular line of direction of a railway in the absence of full information, it is premature to say what is desirable in making Dunedin the port of Otago. We believe that, if the channel is deepened, Mr Swyer’s plan of docks will be necessary, so that vessels may always lie afloat. We believe that, though the cost of dredging, erecting wharves, building warehouses, and forming docks would enormously exceed any estimate that has yet been made, the value of the property necessarily reclaimed and called into existence would far exceed the most sanguine expectations. But, holding this opinion, we should not like to commit ourselves to an unqualified advocacy of it, for we know so many instances in which crude and ill-digested ideas have led to enormous loss. There is something in nature and commerce that beats calculation. We cannot always safely estimate effects from analogies. The favorite analogy with the advocates of harbor improvement is the success that has attended dredging operations in the Clyde. They say it has succeeded there, and they infer it must succeed here. So the people of Geelong said when, at immense pains and outlay, they blasted a channel through the reef that barred the entrance to that beautiful dock, Corio Bay. Unfortunately, however, their views were not shared in by shipowners, and in spite of all its advantages Corio Bay is deserted for the far less inviting roadstead of Port Phillip. Our recommendation is, follow Mr Balfour’s advice; have a thorough and scientific survey of the harbor, from mouth to head; decide upon what is wanted, and count the cost; take stock of the probable assets, and then the public will be in possession of data upon which to act. Be like the Town Clerk of Ephesus, “ Do nothing rashly.” The railway will serve onr purpose until something better is devised.