RE-SURVEY OF CHRISTCHURCH

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1501, 7 December 1878, Page 3

RE-SURVEY OF CHRISTCHURCH

To the Editor of the Globe.

Sib, —Some of the remarks in your leading article of yesterday, on the above subject, appear to have been written under a misapprehension. You speak, for example, of “ the absurd way in which this original survey was conducted, when the sections Crown granted as possessing 100 links by 250 links, really contained, as pegged on the ground, one link more each way,” thus implying that an error of one link each way in every section occurred in the original survey. This is certainly not the case. No doubt each section contains the extra link, but it was done deliberately at the time, and the frontages are shown on the original map of the survey of Christchurch, made by Mr Jollie, as 101 links. It is clear, therefore,that having been done intentionally, it cannot fairly be considered as a mistake in the work. Moreover, so far as lam aware, the town sections were not Crown granted as 100 x 250, but were simply referred to as being town section number so and so on the map of the Chief Surveyor, which map, as I have just stated, shows the measurements which are now ascertained to be correct. This is a well-known fact, and has been acted upon for many years. The result of the re-survey shows, as Mr Baker and Mr Adams both state, that the original survey in 1850 was “ well and carefully done.” I think that the two gentlemen above referred to have fallen into an error in assuming that there was any allowance made in the survey of the Town Reserves, and that instead of 1800 links, as shown on the map, the correct distance should have been 1805 links. I believe the distance was intended to to be 1800 links. Does not this view account for the well-known fact stated in Mr Baker’s letter, that the North Belt is fenced in from five to six links too narrow ? Allow only 1800 links for the depth of the Town Reserves, and the Belt is 200 links wide. Another point of importance arises on this subject, on which I should like to say a word or two. As none of the original pegs are in existence, the re-survey is based upon the assumption that one particular line is correct. Arguing from this adopted datum, all the other streets °are said to be nearly correct, or to encroach on or recede from their assumed true lino. Every line which is not parallel to and at a given distance from this line, or •which is not absolutely at a right angle thereto, is treated as incorrect to the extent of such divergence. It is obvious that this assumed datum line is not in itself final, and that it might be moved, and that according as it is moved from its now adopted position, so will the results based upon it be altered also. I do not write entirely from a survey point of view, but as a matter of argument which the unprofessional man can follow. No doubt the re-survey has been made with extreme care; the real question is the correct datum line. A series of rectangular blocks, 1111 links by 502 links, can be laid out with great accuracy in a variety of positions; but when this has been done, and the pegs have all disappeared, it is a matter of great difficulty to re-establish the original linos with precision, in the absence of fixed reference stations. The owners of property have certain interests and rights, and before it is officially and finally declared that their holdings encroach on the streets, the fullest and most careful investigation should be made ; and the City Council, as representing the citizens, ought to ascertain whether the lines proposed represent the best general average that can be adopted. Possibly, and most probably, they do; but I would suggest that if a sub-committee of the City Council were to seek a conference with the Chief Surveyor and Mr Adams, they yvould be able to consider the question in all its bearings, and to come to a satisfactory conclusion. Yours, Ac., OLD COLONIST. [The justification of the quotation in the first part of our correspondent’s letter, depends entirely, whether or not the measurements given in the Crown grants differ from those on the map of the survey. Wo cannot discover in the article any disparagement of the work of the survey —very much to the contrary. As for the base line, if the original one cannot be found, it is clear that another must be adopted, and, other things being equal, we can see no objection to taking that proposed by the ro-survoyors. —Ed, Globe.']