THE BRUNNER MINE AND RAILWAY.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 950, 21 March 1872, Page 3

THE BRUNNER MINE AND RAILWAY.

_ {To the Editor, oj the. Westport Times and Charleston Argus.) Sir, —It is said that when one of our ablest,.English lawyers was first offered a judgeship, he declined it, jocosely remarkirg that he believed he would make an excellent judge if there was but one side to a question. The " Grey River Argus " pretends , that there is but one side of the river Grey on which to make the proposed railway, and that is the South, and that Greyinouth must be the terminus. Opinions differ, and I am one of the few who dissent from that view ; and, . with your permission, will endeavor to explain why as fully and fairly as I can. I admit Tdo so with great diffidence on account of the theoretical report of two such scientific gentlemen ; as Mr Blackett and Dr Hector being . different to my views on this subject. . Still, men are but mortal, and therefore fallible ; as a' proof of. this I may mention that Mr Blackett once held opinions diametrically opposed to those contained in the joint report. In considering the coal supply, I presume that what most affects the ; public is, the production of better coal at a less price than can be furnished . from New South Wales. We will < take it for granted that the General Government are desirous of keeping in this colony the large amount of money sent annually to Newcastle for coal. No. T.— In the report I have re- , ferred to, the following is the first recommendation : . . "The Commissioners consider that when facilities for carriage are afforded, there is no doubt that the seams on the south side will be opened up and worked." , The probability of the seams on the , south side of the river being " opened up and worked " appears to me very problematical. The coal seams at Brunnerton rise 21 in 6, and I suspect that on the opposite side of the river they dip as much. If that supposition is correct, machinery will be required for pumping, lifting coal, &c. The cost of this, and opening up the mine would be something near £60,000,

and to make a railway to convey the coal to Grey mouth on the south side will cost not less than £35,000. The question must be, is this'expenditure needful ? I think not, for on the north side, there is the Bruriner mine already proved, and according to a calculation made by the late Mr Davis, there is enough coal in that mine to supply the present consumption of the whole colony for about 300 years. This is without meddling with the fault, or taking into consideration the five other seams that can be advantageously worked at BrUnnerton, or the 30 feet seam exposed at Blackball. So long as there are coal seams on the north side with natural drainage and other advantages, it is sheer madness to suppose that those on the south can compete in price; and I think it would be a suicidal policy to work the two aides conjointly, as it would raise the price of coal to a higher figure than it could be procured from Newcastle. As regards the " facilities for carriage," had not the Grey Eiver Coal Mining Co. the same facilities that the purchasers from the Brunner coal mine had ? Yet in a very few months tbey lost about|£sooo in getting a few tons of coal from the exposed seam, and—collapsed. It was known from the first that it would result in loss ; so "foreign" capital was introduced. No. II.—" Recommends that a light bridge should be thrown across the coal gorge." In my opinion there is no necessity for this bridge. As I before observed to construct the railway on the south side will cost £35,000, and then a con.siderablo portion of it will he under water during floods. It is true that by taking the line about a mile or a mile and a half up the Omutumutu Creek it would be less liable to be flooded, but that would make the distance about 9 miles, thereby adding considerably to the cost. On the north side of the river a tramway with.iron rails could be easily constructed by the 5 mile route for £12 ; 000. (By the way, why was not this route, the shortest, and by far the best, taken into consideration by the Commissioners?) If a railroad was found requisite it could be altered at little expense. Should this short line be considered part of the through line to Nelson, the north side is in comparaably .the. best, thqre being no expensive bridges to construct, no floods

could interfere with it, and it could be made for less money ; while ou the south side, besides., greater cost, the very practical question of floods has to be considered, particularly between the Arnold and the Ahaura. During the flood last month from 9 to 10 miles of the proposed route was covered with from 8 to 21 feet of water. No. III.—" That the. wharfage at Grreymouth should be improved in such a manner that, while it affords facilities for shipping coal it will also render permanent the channel, and increase the draft of water on the bar."

The prevailing wind here is westerly) and when there is rain with the wind from that quarter it rarely reaches up eouutry, consequently the river rises but little, but it causes such a vast body of water to rush out of the Greymouth lagoon that the river is gradually encroaching on the north beach. This has the effect, with the assistance of a current from the south for about 9 months in the year, of causing the south spit to overlap the north beach ; and when in this state it is " risky " for the coasting steamers to enter the river, and nearly unworkable by the tusr on account of the swell from the westward which always rolls in, and to which the broadside of a vessel would be exposed. In my opinion the only way in which the depth of water on the bar can be increased is to straighten the course of the river and confine it within certain limits. This would necessitate the construction of works on both sides of the river. No. IV.—Has reference to the construction of 12 chains of stone wharf at Grreymouth, which the Commissioners estimate will cost £5000.;

About two years ago Mr Blackett, in his report to the Nelson Government, urgently recommended the construction of 4 chains of stone wharf at Cobden, and be computed that on account of the close proximity of material it would only cost £SOO per chain. If a stone wharf at Cobden with the above-named advantage, and the still greater one of having a rock foundation, will cost £SOO a chain ; how does it happen that a wharf at Greymouth, where the material is not so handy, and where for a depth of 50 feet there is no other foundation than sand and shingle, that the cost per chain is estimated at only about £420? My only object in writing is to assist in honestly and fairly discussing this important subject. And, if lam correct in my premises, as the work will be done by the expenditure of public money, 1, as a unit of the public, do and will protest against the spending of some £BO,OOO for a doubtful purpose, and neglecting that which is certain.—l am, &c, Homo.