Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 1903. OUR HARBOR WORKS.

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 January 1903, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 1903. OUR HARBOR WORKS.

Our harbor works are of vast importance to the district and colony at large. In dealing With proposals for further works the average mortal would imagine that any journal having self-respect would approach the subject in an unbiased manner ; would divert itself of all personal feelings ; would be careful in regard to facts; and guarded in innuendo. Whether our morning contemporary has acted on these lines, in this morning’s issue, will to many be exceedingly doubtful. It would appear that the Argus commented a few days ago Upoh the same subject; for with inflated self-complacency our contemporary tells this morning that “Ithascome to our ears that some dissatisfaction is felt at our remarks on Wednesday last regarding the continuation of the moles. But that is a mere nothing. The gentlemen in the Harbor Board, who delight in patronage and the various other little perquisites that are attached to a seat on the Board, need not be unduly alarmed.” As we never saw the article, never heard of it, and in any care but few people would read it, the coming to our ears ” must have been among the mutual admiration society of Boundary street, But let us take our contemporary's assertions and “expert criticism” —for engineering experts like critics are ready made and see what is to be made of them, “ Even, 1 * says oilr contemporary, “ if the extension of the moles should be stopped on the advice

of marine engineers* even also if the Board should be prevented carrying out the insane idea of Commencing the expenditure of many thousands in dredging out docks in the Karora lagoon, there are yet many useful works required for the inner harbour that will entail considerable expenditure for years to come, and such as the Board can afford.” Our contemporary in penning the above either shows ignorance of the facts or a deliberate attempt to distort same. The extension of the moles is proposed to be made because the Engineer-in-Chief, Mr Napier Bell, Messrs Goode, Mathews and Son, and the Board’s Engineer all advised that thi s should he done. The Engineer-in Chief and Mr Bell did not agree as to the width of future extension, and the Board to make sure of the future sent, through the Government, both plans Home to an engineering firm of repute, to further report upon. The report—a modification of both schemes—duly came to hand. In order to be further satisfied, the Board," taking advantage of the Premier's presence, asked him to personally visit the works, so that when he returns to Wellington he might consult still further with the engineers on the question. Surely no undue haste here. Then as to the socalled “ insane idea ” of dredging the lagoons. Sir John Goode, in his report, laid great stress upon the benefit likely to accrue from dredging the lagoons and securing an extra scour on the bar. Mr Napier Bell, the former Engineer-in-Cbief, and all the Board’s engineers strongly endorsed Sir John Cooke’s opinion as’to the value of lagoon dredging, and the Board, having obtained the approval of the Government, propose to proceed with the work. Of course the en-

gineering ability inside the four corners of the Argus Office declares the proposal to be an “ insane one,” and we presume that settles the matter. But let us proceed. Our contemporary says Instead of pushing out seawalls of doubtful advantage, the money could be a great deal better employed in providing berthage for sailing vessels above where the tug is usually moored. That is a great requisite to complete the accomm dation of the port; and it is not saying too much to express surprise that the question has not been attended to before this, instead of heaping stone promiscuously on both moles, as if the existence of the port depended upon it, which we are pleased to say jt

does not.“ The lagoon is where additional berthing will also be provided. The Board first proposed an extension of the wharf above where the tug lies. The engineers reported against such proposal, declaring that as it would have to jut out into the stream'it would be a source of great danger. Then the Board proposed an extension seaward of the present wharf. This was also condemned by the Engineers and Harbor Master as unsafe on account of the range. What more does our contemporary want? Does the Boundary Streetßngineeringfcalent declare the Engineers are again wrong? If so, of coarse, that again settles the

matter. Our contemporary thetttocY ceeds to remark that , “In view of the greAt probabilities of trade that now exist we might ask the harbor authorities whether the last wharf extension is as strong as it should' be to provide secure wharfage for vessels of such immense weight. It must not be lost sight of that the piles ate not very deeply sunk. They rest Oh a not too secure foundation, and the way the wharf is bound to the roadway is equally insecure, and the ground does not guarantee the safety of vessels of such weight as are beginning to come here, and that are probably only the precusors of still larger vessels.” The Harbor B:ard has been for sonic time past, and is now, engaged sheet piling the wharves so as to strengthen ana has authorised an expenditure to the Railway i3epartnient of £2OOO for further strengthening works. Does

this meet the Argus approval ? Was the writer ignorant of the fact when he wrote, or had he some other motive in view ? His next sentences should be read with fear and trembling: “It would be a bad thing for the port if some day when an unusually heavy range prevailed, one or two of those large steamers broke their cables—and this has happened of late—or dragged the wharf out of shape, Yet all this is possible, and even probable.” Dreadful to think that Su6h a calamity is possible ; equally dreadful to think that an earthquake might come along ‘and destroy the whole of the harbour works, and even swallow the Argus scribe in “ Nature’s embrace.” Our contemporary then kindly and fatherly remarks “ It is to be hoped that the Board will bestow some consideration on this subject. They ought to be of a good deal more importance to every member of the Board than trying to get work for as many friends or voters as they possibly can.” The first utterance we have shown the Board has paid every attention to » the second part but too clearly shows the spirit in which the whole article Was written. Where tile friends or voters bonie in Wo cannot tell. Perhaps our contemporary can ?

But let us deal with , the general policy of our contemporary. In municipal matters the Argus opposed the purchase of the gas works, which is now giving a profit to the ratepayers of over £2OOO per annum s it opposed the drainage of the town, necessary for publifc health ; it opposed the water-supply and building of town hall; since a change in the personal of the harbor board, it has opposed every proposal; and strangest of all things, during the Premier’s absence, it never missed an opportunity of adverse criticism or of reprinting paragraphs hostile to his party, yet lately since his return, and more especially since he has been in our midst, the reverse has been the case.