A LIVELY EPISODE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2275, 2 July 1880, Page 2

A LIVELY EPISODE.

At a special meeting of the Harbor Hoard yesterday a portion of Air AleCregur’s report on the Harbor works having been read, Mr Hall moved. Air Aetun seconded, and it was carried unanimously—•■ That Mr AIcG ivgor's report as read bo adopted, as far as is practicable.'’ Mr Moody referred to the portion of the report which stated that the foundation blocks which bud slipped were supported on a sloping reef with bags of concrete. He was surprised to learn that bags of concrete had been used in tb.is manner in laying the foundation of the llroakwater. It was the iirst time that he had been made aware of this method of construction, and be was not at all satisfied with it. Bags of concrete he submitted were scarcely a suitable foundation for such a work.

Air Barker suggested that large rods of iron driven into the rock would tend to improve the foundation where the reef sloped as described.

31V .Sutler read clause 8 of Hie conditions requiring the bottom to bo carefully examined by divers, projecting rocks to be blasted, and boles to be Idled with concrete previous to the laying of the foundation blocks. The Engineer in explanation said that the blocks which had slipped had been laid on a sailde, the reef dipping towards the south, and bags of concrete were employed to make a level bed. The accident that had occurred, however, had proved the inexpediency of using bags of concrete in such places, and in future, although it might occasion a slight delay, lie would have blocks specially moulded to Jit the surface of the reef. Mr Sutter said this was the lirst time lie had heard of those concrete bags being laid on a saddle. Jfe was led all along to believe that the blocks were laid on a solid bottom of rock. When be put the question to the engineer at a former meeting of the I’oard Mr CJoodall distinctly stated that the blocks were built on the solid rock. lie charged the engineer with having deceived the Hoard on this matter. When the question was asked how these blocks had slipped, he should have told them the facts. Not a word had ever been whispered about these bags of concrete. The Engineer should have told the truth and the whole truth.

Mr Barker remarked that no doubt a mistake had been made.

The Engineer said be was quite as capable of telling the truth and the whole truth as Captain Sutter. He had always stated that the blocks were kept up by bags of cement. If there had been any misapprehension he was sorry for it, but he found concrete bags of great assistance. If lie found a bare reef and made up the crevices with concrete bags he considered ho was building the foundation with concrete. Mr Hall denied that tl ic Engineer had deceived the Board. He (Mr Hall) had seen the concrete bags laid down, and the Engineer had mentioned the fact. Mr Sutter replied that such a fact had

never been mentioned to tlie Board. Mr Hall—You have not always been present.

Mr Gray said there was no doubt that a mistake had been made in laying the foundation blocks on shingle, but they could not rectify the matter how. He did not believe in the laying of blocks of concrete on a sloping table. Such a foundation must be most insecure, and as a proof of this the sea had washed the foundation away. If the} r had been building a solid mole on a saddle in the way described, they had admittedly made a most serious blunder.

Mr .Sutter reiterated that he considered Mr Goodall had deceived the Board. He (Mr Sutter) asked the engineer at a meeting of the Board, how the blocks had slipped, and Mr Goodall spoke about the scour and the suction, and allirmcd the foundation blocks were laid on the solid rock. Not a word was said about bags of concrete. Tbc fact was undeniable that these blocks were laid on shingle. He had seen the shingle with his own eyes, and it was the washing away of this shingle that disturbed the foundations. Ho had spoken to Mr Hamilton, the clerk of works, about the course that was being pursued of building the Breakwater on a foundation of shingle, and the assertion could not be denied.

At this stage the discussion was allowed to drop, and it was resolved that the portion of Mr Met livgor’s report wbioli did not deal with recoinineudatioiis as to future works should be handed b> the press for publication.