13

1.—7

166. And that afterwards he purchased plant of which Sir John Coode had not approved ?—■ He did. 167 In that respect was he not departing from his original instructions ?—Oh, yes; most certainly 168. Was that with the sanction of the Board or not?—-It was merely done by telegram. As I state, the time was elapsing. It was very expensive to communicate by telegraph, and it would take four or five months to correspond by letter A telegram was sent to him to purchase the plant and hasten back. Then he purchased the plant we have now The Board could not say at that time whether he would have the plans of Sir John Coode or not. 169. It was not the intention of the Board that he should purchase plant other than that approved by Sir John Coode?—No. 170. Do you identify these plans ? Is this, marked M.D. 253. the original design prepared by Sir John Coode for the rubble-mound with rubble from Paretutu ? —Yes. 171. And that plan has since been abandoned by the Board ? —The rubble-mound has been abandoned. The new design is on the same lines as to the area of water enclosed. It has been altered from a rubble mound to a concrete section. 172. And this plan was practically abandoned when Mr. Eees was sent to England ? —Yes. 173. And this plan, marked M.D. 404, signed by Sir John Coode in March, 1880,1 take to be the plan upon which the Board is now working ? —Yes. 174. Indicating a concrete mole 2,320 feet long ? —Yes—to V V 175. Being a section only of the original design for the harbour at New Plymouth ?—Yes. 176. Then the Board, having abandoned the first plan at the period of Mr. Eees's departure to England, continued with no authorized plan before them until this second was submitted?— That is so. 177 At what date was this amended design approved by the Board ? —I cannot give the date, but it was submitted to the Government and approved by them, I know 178. September 30, 1880, is the date of approval by the Government?— Then a small time before that probably It would be three months coming out, at all events. 179. I want you to state, within a month, if you can, when this second plan was laid before the Board and adopted by them ? Speaking approximately, how long before September, 1880?— I should say, probably three months. I think, if I recollect, they were here in the office some time before being approved. 180. Then, you would say, in June or July that plan was before the Board? —Yes. 181. What was Sir John Coode's estimate of the cost of the work on the amended design?—l think £285,800. 182. Mr. Pitt.] With the piers, or without them ?—To V V 183. The jetties ?—With the jetties, I think. 184. The Chairman.] Sir John Coode says in his report, "It must be borne in mind, however, that the plan now proposed will provide a fendered quay of 1,500 feet in length along the harbour face of the pier from the inner boat-steps to the seaward termination ; jetty accommodation for berthage purposes is not therefore required in this design, as in that which accompanied my report of February, 1879. Although a solid jetty, formed so as to shelter the inner face of the pier, would be of great service during north-east winds, and would also serve to cut off 'range,' which would otherwise be experienced along the quay when the seas were coming home directly on to the works. In the absence of a jetty of this character, some temporary inconvenience from wave'scend' and undulation will occasionally be experienced; but seeing that a similar work, if placed in the position of the outermost jetty, or somewhat more to the north-east, and nearer the end of the pier, would require to possess considerable strength in order to adapt it for resisting the heavy seas to which it would be exposed, the provision of such a jetty would largely increase the expenditure, and I have therefore considered that the erection of jetty accommodation should be determined hereafter, upon completion of the pier to V V" ? —Then it is £285,800 without the jetties. 185. What funds were at the disposal of the Board in June, 1880 ? State it approximately, and you can correct it afterwards, when you get the documents? —I do not think I can state it from memory 186. You can state probably, in the absence of the books, whether the amount was equal to Sir John Coode's estimate for the amended design ? —No, it was not. 187 Mr. Pitt.] How far short, approximately ?—Certainly more than £100,000, because the proceeds of the loan were only £185,000, in round numbers. 188. And a portion of the money was already expended?— Very little. 189. Still a few thousands ?— Possibly ; I could not say 190. Mr. Fulton.] Not in plant ?—No, nothing in plant at that time. 191. The Chairman.] Can you say how the Board proposed to raise the balance of the funds necessary for the work ?—Well, I think the general feeling of the Board was that this was only part of the larger work—the commencement of it—to be supplemented in the course of time, and that the best thing to do was to go as far as they could with what they had upon designs that would be a part of a great future work, w;hich had been waited for for years. 192. And the ultimate cost of which would be somewhere about £928,000? —Well, yes ; including the eastern mole. A great proportion of that would be for the eastern mole —over £400,000 —the necessity for which is possibly in doubt. That is a kind of luxurious attachment to it. 193. Mr. Pitt.] That would be £400,000 out of £928,000 ?—Yes; but it is not an important work. 194. That leaves £528,000, and you have only £185,000 to commence with ? —The figures are larger, I think, than are warranted in the circumstances. 195. The Chairman.] The Board was aware it was about £100,000 short of the necessary funds to carry out the amended design, and that amended design had to be submitted for approval by the Governor in Council ?—Yes. 196. You have stated already that approval was given in September, 1880 ? — Yes.