The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1911.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3236, 5 June 1911, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1911.

Harbor Improvement,

The report by Mr.. Holmes, Engineer-in-chie£ to tlie State, in regard to Gisborne. harbor is to hand. For. this important document the district has to thank the Minister for Marine, who arranged, for Mr. Holmes to visit this locality, with that end. in view. As to whether his propose's are the best which could be adopted is a matter with reference to which criticism of real' value can, of course, come only from those who have the ‘advantage of expert knowledge on the subject. That the suggestions are worthy of, and wilt receive, due consideration may be taken for granted, coming, as they do, from such a liigh authority on the engineering problems of this country. Before the' Harbor Board.'at the time when Mr. HolVnes’s advice was sought, it wilt be recalled, was, primarily, the difficulty occasioned by the lange in the river during heavy southerlies. It will be seen, however, that he lias not by any I means confined his report solely to this aspect of harbor improvement. Taking into consideration the growing requirements of t-lie district, he has put forward a scheme embodying his views as to the course which the Board should pursue in future in regard to- providing additional! harbor facilities. From various portions of the report it is clear, we think, that Mr. Holmes would on no account recommend the establishment of an “outer 1 * harbor Ito the eastward of tike Turanigamii river. It is also fully apparent that he feels that it would be much wiser for Gisborne to go .in for a more Ambitious port than; the proposed inner harbor can possibly afford. There are no doubt many to whom his scheme • will appeal, for at present they prefer an inner harbor with ’ limited, but generally admitted certain, accommodation at a reasonable figure only because any one of the suggested outer harbors would involve a huge s«m whilst it is considered doubtful whether there would be a compensating return. What is also worthy of special attention, is the fact that the present works would form part of Mr. Holmes’s scheme, and in view of. the Maui having been acquired it would not bo necessary to go to the expense of purchasing a dredge “There is,” lie avers, “no chance with anything Iffio ordinary’ care of a vessel missing the entrance in any weather in which a. vcs

eel can run, as would l be the case w ere a turn has to be made to reach shelter or enter the harbor as is necessary in all but one oi the schemes so far advanced for an outer harbor that I have seen.” As to the site of /the sea harbor proposed by Mr. Holmes, it is evident that, from the point of view c convenience, it has great claims over any of its rivals and would, indeed, be difficult t<> excel. In this •connection there is an important matter which must not be overlooked. According to Mr. Holmes, the position which he re commends for the harbor extension wil provide at small cost by reclamation of tiro area, between high and low water marks a sufficient area fex railway sidings, the sites .for harbor sheds, _ warehouses, and probably sites for private warehouses which would be a source or revenue for the Board. What is also of paramount importance is the fact that •under such a scheme berthing would he provided very much earlier than could possibly be expected under, say, Mr. Merchant's scheme. If the Board should decide merely to obviate the range m the river ilt can, Mr. Holmes holds, he done by the removal of portion of the groyne at a .nominal cost. Thau t difficulty should be overcome a 7 il yull agree, is in the interests of the district. As to the mere pretentious scheme which Mr Holmes has outlined, it would cost, we are told, about. £187,000. For our own part we hope that the Board will take immediate steps with a view to the removal of the conditions under which the range occurs in the river. :This work alone may, as Mr. Holmes says, be, alone, in the nature of a retrograde move, hut it is too important to Ire delayed until any other harbor scheme could he sufficiently advanced as to render it unnecessary. With reference to the proposed sea harbor due time, we hold, must be taken for it» consideration. Nc doubt its cost would he small as against those of other schemes which have been brought forward ; still it involves a substantial sum. As in. the case of ether schemes which have been suggested, the residents we believe would have more faith in it provided that it had first been the subject of review by the best authority on harbor construction available. In expressing this opinion it must not he taken that wo wish to detract from the brdbubted crpacity which Mr. Holmes or the other engineer* 'concerned possess. What we wish to emphasise is simply- this: That care must be taken not to delay the further development of the inner harbor if there would appear to he doubt as to the prospects of ca’ly, if only partial, use of any new harbor.