South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2315, 18 August 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1880.

Tun members of the Timaru' Harbor Board have resolved to bo blindfolded no longer. Their recent appointment of a,consulting engineer to report on the ‘ Breakwater, and their determination to make a full enquiry into the conflicting statements of Mr Goodall and Mr Stumbles, the late contractor, are evidences of a disposition to got at the true facts in connection with the building of this costly structure. It may be an unpleasant thing for a Board to overhaul the reports and statements of an officer whose professional status is supposed to elevate him above the mean intellects of sea captains, but in this instance the officer lias himself alone to thank for the awkward position that he occupies, bo far from doing an injustice to Mr Goodall, their engineer, or anybody else, the Board has acted with an amount of moderation that has exposed them to general censure. Month after month they have been content with reports of an excessively conflicting character. They have reposed the most childlike faith in improbable assurances ; and they have even consented to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyesight. That these affronts were submitted to by an intelligent public bocty, lias been due, we believe, to the influence of one or two members, who for some reasons best known to themselves, have constantly placed obstacles in the way of enquiry. These members, instead of assisting the majority in seeing that the work is being carefully and skilfully prosecuted, appear to have completely mistaken the object for which they were appointed to the Board, bo far from protecting the public interests, and seeing that the money expended on the Breakwater is being judiciously laid out. they have identified themselves with the chief officer of the Board in a way that cannot fail to excite botli loathing and contempt. If this officer’s statements and recommendations no longer receive the attention, or curry the weight that professional advice ought to' do, he can thank these injudicious advocates for the circumstance. Instead of befriending him—their offensive and irrritable demeanour lias made the majority regard with suspicion and distrust the kind of competency which requires the aid of abusive influence.

The present trouble in the Harbor Board has all arisen out of a resolve of the members not to be “ blind followers of the blind,” Up to a certain point their confidence in the written and verbal statements submitted to them respecting the prosecution of the Breakwater was simply perfect. This confidence might have remained unshaken to this day but for the fact that a large portion of the foundation on the south side gave way, the concrete blocks tumbling out of their places and lying in a confused heap several feet below the level that they previously occupied. The members bad been told repeatedly that these blocks rested on the solid rock, and the question arose —if so, why did they tumble out of their position? Mr Goodall explained this away by'- adhering to his statement that they rested on the rock, emphatically denying that there was any sand or shingle at the place, but stating that there was a shelving reef that dipped to the south, and this accounted for the blocks slipping out. A few weeks elapse, Mr McGregor, of the Oanmru works, is called in, and he furnishes a report in which he alludes to the structure having given way because it rested on bags of concrete, and sensibly suggests that bags of concrete should be avoided for the future. Mi Goodall, singularly enough, although he had said nothing whatever about these bags of concrete previously, now acknowledges that bags of concrete were used in the way stated, but adds that in future the blocks will be moulded to answer the shape of the bottom reef. To make

matters still more complicated, Mr Goodall, at the last meeting of the Board, finding - himself taxed with his various and somewhat irreconcileable statements, submits that the falling out of the blocks was due to neither bags of concrete nor the sliding reef, but to the combined effects of *' pneumatic and hydraulic pressure.”

- It happens, however, that some of the members of the Board —prominently amongst them His Worship the Mayor — had .had a lirm conviction from the first that the giving way of the structure was due to none of the causes assigned, but to one that has all along been emphatically denied by the engineer—namely that the Breakwater bad been built on sand and shingle. This opinion is to some extent borne out by the appearances presented, and it is further fortified by the statement said to have been made by Mr Stumbles, the contractor, that no bags of concrete were laid down as alleged, and no shelving reef was discovered. The question, it will be perceived, is a serious one. It permits of no burking. If the Board has been deceived it is time that they were undeceived. In the face of statements so diametrically opposed to each other, no pains nor expense should be spared to get at the truth. The reputation of the engineer to the Board is at stake as well as that of the members. The matter that the Board lias to decide is—has the part of the Breakwater winch has given way been built on sand or shingle or lias it been built on the solid rock, as they were led to believe ? The bags of concrete ami the sloping reef arc material to the issue. Arc they genuine, or arc they myths ? If the contractor and the engineer arc at variance on this point, the diver will have to be employed. A thorough and complete investigation of the whole question is demanded, before the Board or the public can be expected to have the slightest confidence in the operations that are being carried out. If they have been building concrete on shingle, under the impression that it was rock, in the past, what guarantee have they that a different course is now being pursued? Seeing that an enormous amount of mone} r is being spent every month on the Breakwater, it is desirable that the Board should know what thej r arc doing. If they cannot get the correct facts from their own officers, to whom are they to apply ? It may bo that tiie engineer to the Board is in the right, and the contractor is in the wrong, but under any circumstances a rigid enquiry is demanded. Until the question at issue has been cleared up the relative position of the Harbor Board and their principal officer must be eminently unsatisfactory. In the meantime, pending this enquiry, Mr Goodall’s injudicious friends would do well to avoid the indelicacy of prejudging his case, llis Worship the Mayor has earned a good deal of unmerited abuse in this matter, but wc have no doubt every right-thinking citizen will esteem him the more for fearlessly discharging a public duty, however unpleasant.