The Daily News. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1901. MR NAPIER BELL'S REPORT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 253, 26 October 1901, Page 2

The Daily News. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1901. MR NAPIER BELL'S REPORT.

It would be impassible to over-estimate the valuo of a really satisfactory harbour at New Plymouth. The situation is so favourable, as a depot for an enormous extent of the most fertile land in the colony, and so convenient for shipping to trade north or south, or to Australia, tbat every! hiog relating to harbour matters is watched with deep interest. The heavy burden which the harbour rate has imposed on a large number of settlers has helped *o lender this interest more keen than it otherwise would have beep. It is needle 3", therefore, to s\y that the report of Mr Napier Bell on a proposal to make an opening in the root of the breakwater, as a care for the sind difficulty, was looked for with exceptional interest. That report, which was first published in the columns of the News, is now before us. The persistent advocacy of ttis proposal t.y a considerable section of the community, including a prominent member of the Harbour Board, and the hope of permanently getting rid of the cost of dredging caused many people to look with favour upon the proposal until at last the Harbour Board decided to get an authoritative opinion upon it, We believed every one hoped and expected that Mr Bell's report would be so conclusive, either for or against the proposal, that the matter would be settled for a'l time. After a very careful study of the raport we regret very much so say that we do not feel that confidence in Mr Ball's opinion which his great experience as a marine engineer should command. Although there can be no doubt that Mr Bell is altogether opposed to making the proposed opening, tha reasons ha gives, for that opinion, ate not so conclusive as the Board has a right to expect. He introduces a good deal about Sir John Ooode and the experiences at Port Elizabeth and Warrnambool; but the conditions are not exactly the same as at New Plymouth. Mr Bell is also quite wrong in his statement that the beach north of the breakwater is resuming its former sand coveted condition. The only time there is any appreciable increase in the quantity of sand on the now rock strewn shore, between the breakwater an! the Henui stream, is after very heavy weather from the north. It is very doubtful also if the di edge is altogether responsible for all the improvement he speaks of in the harbour. There is no doubt the general drift of tbe sand is northwards, and it is quite likely that the now frequent visits of large stealers, of deep draught, with powetful screws continually stirring up the sand, has a great deal to do wi'h this improvement. The weakest part of Mr Ball's report if, however, near the conclusion,where,afterraying " I cannot recommend the Board to spend £7BO in making ' what I consider a useless experiment," he says " but I would suggest that the' pipe of the fixed pump be cut at the position of the proposed opening, and that sand be pumped into the harbour at this place; observation of what becomes of this sand may lead to further enlighment as to what would happen if a hole were cut in the breakwater." Oa first reading this we hardly knew if it was intended to be taken seriously. For months past, whenever the sand pump would work, this very thing has been done, and the sand has been pumped into the harbour, and disappeared n» one knows where; apparently it has drifted up the beach, and this fajt has always been used oy Mr Sarten, and others, as evidence of the valuo of tbe opening. Mr Bell's proposal misses the point of Mr Sarten's argument, which is, to as far as possible apply the natural force of the tidal action to send along tbe beach the sand which now accumulates behind the breakwater. The difficulty is not to get the sand into the harbour (that can be done without the aid of. the sand pump) bub to get it brought again under the influ9nce of the tidal action. Unless Mr Bell can in some way bring the same pressure or force to bear on the sand, which Mr Sarten claims would be ex- j erted by the force of the tidal currents flowing through the proposed opsning, depositing s-md in the calm, dead water in the sheltered area, just below the cattle wharf, would be experimenting under very different conditions to those cont.' mplated by Mr Sarten. We regret very much that Mr Bell's report is not more conclusive in this particular, because it leaves a nasty flavour of uncertainty, regarding the efficacy of the proposed opening, which his report was procured specially to allay. We trust his further report, on the harbour as a whole, wHI make this matter clear, our object in calling attention to tbe question being to give him the opportunity of doing so.