HARBOUR BOARD.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIV, Issue 9662, 4 November 1882, Page 2

HARBOUR BOARD.

A special meeting of the Harbour Board took place yesterday afternoon. Present — Messrs Carson (chairman), Ballance, Cross, Cornfoot, Abbot, Watt, and Thatcher. The chairman said that he called the meeting to consider the following letter received from the chairman of the Heads Railway Company: — "I have the honour to inform you that the directors of the Heads Railway Company are entirely opposed to allowing any alteration to be made in the terms of the wharf contract, believing that, to insure stability, piles 50 feet in length are required, so that any permission you may give to Mr Denby to use shorter ones will be given on the responsibility of the Harbour Board only, and against the wishes of the company." Mr Pharazyn, with Messrs Sergeant, Hutchison, Anderson (directors), and Mr A. Atkins (engineer) of the company, were in attendance. Mr Hassell, the board's engineer, was also present. Mr Watt enquired what alterations had been allowed by the engineer. The chairman said that it was originally intended that the front row of piles should be 50 feet, but this having been found impracticable, the engineer had allowed the contractor to use shorter ones. The company, however, objected to this as affecting the stability of the wharf, and insisted upon the original contract being carried out. The engineer said that at first it had not been intended to have 50 feet piles, and when the original specifications were discussed, it was thought even that less than 40 feet would have been sufficient. When the works were started it was found that the 50 feet face piles would not go, and, after consultation with Mr Atkins on behalf of the company, shorter lengths were sanctioned. He quite understood that Mr Atkins was satisfied. In the specification for the wharf it was provided that the face and mooring piles should he 50 feet in length, but it provided a test if that was found impossible. The test was to drive them one foot with twenty blows of a ton monkey from a height of 10 feet, but he (Mr Hassell) had adopted a far severer test by 150 blows with a ton and a half monkey. The shorter lengths would render the wharf perfectly safe. They would be in the ground to a depth at least of 10 to 11 feet at 14 feet spring tides. This would be after dredging, but otherwise they would be 20 to 25 feet in the ground. None of the piles would reach the actual bed of the river. The deepest hole at the spot was about 38 feet. Mr Watt asked who selected the site of the wharf. The chairman replied that the Railway company selected it, the Board having nothing more to do with the matter than to encourage the enterprise. Mr Pharazyn said the Railway Company were of opinion that the conces-

sions made were injurious to the stability of the wharf, especially after dredging had been done, and they therefore insisted on the fulfilment of the original bargain. The chairman said that the question really was whether it was possible to drive these 50 feet piles. The company contended that it was possible, but the Board's engineer thought otherwise. At the same time it was obvious that 50 feet piles should at any rate have been secured, for in one instance it appeared that if a longer pile had been procured it could have been driven further. The engineer said that Mr Denby considered that the test mentioned in the operation having been applied, it was found impossible to drive the piles, and therefore he had declined to drive any more till the matter was settled. Mr Abbot remarked that under the contract all disputes of the kind where to be referred to Messrs Barr and Oliver. The chairman pointed out that that referred only to disputes between the Board and the contractor. Mr Thatcher asked if it were, not a fact that before, the test was applied, shorter piles than 50 feet had been provided. The chairman said that he had heard so, and in one case he had already alluded to it was evidently the fact. The engineer, so far as the Board was concerned, had full power to sanction shorter piles. The engineer again pointed out that it was only after consultation with the Company's engineer that he allowed shorter lengths. The chairman said that, so far as the test was concerned, it was never assumed that every pile was to be tried. Mr Cross suggested that it would have been better, when it was found that the piles could go no further, to have cut them off. The engineer admitted that that would have been the best plan. The chairman, however, said that had that course been adopted there would have been, no necessity to insert the clause about the test. Mr Thatcher really thought that advantage had been taken of the test clause before even it had been properly applied. Mr Watt asked if the Board was to take it for granted that the Board's engineer had acquiesced in Mr Hassell sanctioning shorter piles. Mr Atkins said he agreed that if 20 feet could not be driven into the ground, the piles should be shortened, though he did not do this officially, but considered that Mr Hassell was acting on his own responsibility. Mr Ballance asked if the specifications gave the engineer of the Board full power in the matter. The chairman read a clause showing that all alterations could only be done upon the authority of the engineer and the chairman. He (the chairman) had given no authority, nor had any such been given in writing, but he had thought it better to call the Board together. The engineer said that he had instructed Mr Denby to stop the driving, pending the meeting of the Board. Two piles only had been driven without actual authority, but Mr Denby had ordered shorter piles from the mills. There were cases, of course, where 50 feet piles could be put in without difficulty. The chairman said that with Mr Denby it was really a question of faith, as he had proceeded upan the sanction of the engineer, who clearly had authority to act for the Board. Mr Ballance said that it appeared, after all, that only two piles of the shorter lengths had been as yet driven by the contractor. The engineer assented to this, but, in reply to Mr Ballance, said that those two were 35 feet piles, and could have been driven further. The chairman asked if and when the order for 50 feet piles was given. Mr Hassell said that immediately on signing the contract the 50 feet were ordered, but it was on the 25th of September that he sanctioned shorter lengths, and then the original order was countermanded. Mr Abbot asked if the test named in the specifications was a sufficient one. The engineer said that it was the test which had apparently been applied to the town wharf, and was sufficient for the dead weight at the top. Mr Abbot said that it was simply a minimum test. The chairman asked if the pile was driven a certain number of feet, before the test was applied. The engineer replied in the affirmative. The chairman pointed but that a far heavier test had been applied by the contractor than was necessary under the specifications. The engineer added that Mr Denby had been willing to use even a greater test for the same money. Mr Abbot said that the maximum force ought to have been tried. Mr Cross remarked that in such case a 500-ton monkey might have been used, and yet never have driven a single foot. In reply to Mr Watt, the engineer said that the test had been applied in a good many instances. Mr Hutchison said that it appeared to the directors that the concession was not an alteration contemplated by the contract, and that the contractor should be referred to his original terms. Mr Watt said that he had heard from a good many people outside that the wharf was too far down the river, and that shipping would never lie and take in timber there. Now was the time to reconsider the matter. The chairman said that that matter could not be discussed at the present meeting. Mr Cross remarked that the Board could not go away from the contract. Mr Pharazyn informed Mr Watt that he (Mr Pharazyn), on a recent visit to the Heads in heavy weather, had found the water so smooth off the wharf that a boat could have landed. The representatives of the Heads Company then retired, and the Board deliberated upon the matter. Mr Abbot moved, That the contractor be instructed to go on with the works at the Heads according to plans and specifications. — Mr Thatcher seconded this, pro forma. Mr Ballance said it was clear from the specifications that the test should only have been applied to 50 feet piles. Mr Cornfoot said that a far severer test had been used on five 50 feet piles and found to be useless. Mr Ballance said that it was a very strong fact that the engineer of the company had agreed with the Board's engineer in sanctioning shorter lengths, and why should the Board go beyond that faot. It was quite clear also, that the required test had been applied. The whole matter was one for the chairman and engineer as executive officers of the Board. The chairman considered that in such an important matter, when the Board was handy, he thought it right not to act on his own responsibility. Mr Cornfoot thought that the Railway Company should fight the matter out with the contractor. With regard to the test, he might say that no totara piles would stand a greater force than a ton and a-half monkey. The engineer said he did not believe that there was a two-ton monkey in New Zealand.

The chairman pointed out that two of the front piles had been broken already. Mr Watt certainly thought that the specified test had been applied. The chairman said that everything hinged upon whether it was impossible to drive fifty piles the required depth. In reply to a question, Mr Hassell said that he thought it would not cost more than £30 to test all the piles at 50 feet. Mr Cross said that it was very difficult to get 50 feet totara piles anywhere. Mr Cornfoot added that they could be got, but it would involve extra trouble and expense. He might, also say that if the deep dredging were carried out, as the company proposed, the back piles would have to be deeper, or the wharf would stand on a shelf. It was certainly not safe to dredge deeper than 14 feet. Mr Ballance said that Mr Abbot's resolution would not alter the position in the slightest. The chairman said that it would simply bring them face to face with the legal difficulty. His idea all through had been that they should stand by the engineer's opinion. Mr Ballance said that the Railway Company should certainly have come forward, backed up by their engineer, who, however, (by his agreement with Mr Hassell) was opposed to the very thing they were asking for. After a very long further discussion the matter was ordered to stand, over tilI the ordinary meeting of the Board on Tuesday next, the chairman to obtain the solicitor's opinion in the meantime upon the meaning of the clause in the specifications. The Board then adjourned.