THE HARBOR.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 196, 15 September 1888, Page 2

THE HARBOR.

A correspondent, over the nom-de-plume “Pocket,” writes:—“Sir, —As an opponent of the harbor I was rather astonished on reading your article with reference to it of Thursday last, but though I can never reconcile myself to the site I believe there is a great deal in what you say with regard to calling for tenders, as I believe the £40,000 yarn is all moonshine. Excepting with regard to the site I have no fault to find with Mr Thomson’s work; yet seeing as you put it, that we have to choose between two evils, I believe we may just as well spend a few thousands more and give the work a practical test. We have the good weather before us, and if with the blocks in hand the Australia cannot be brought alongside for half of £40,000 then I am a Dutchman—which otherwise lam not. As to me there appears to be something more in your mind than you have divulged, I would like to ask if this is not so ?” In reply we feel that the position is a most peculiar one, and that the gravity of the situation should be recognised and thought over. If for no other reason, we are afraid that as a commercial speculation it will not pay to spend £40,000 to bring the Australia alongside; but then the poll must be taken for that amount—that is assuming a poll is taken, and we believe that to be the best course. We are given to understand that if the work is allowed to remain at present, it will be worse than useless, because it will seriously affect the river—many are of opinion that it will do the same no matter how far the work is carried out, but as against this we must allow the engineering evidence to have some weight. Further we have been informed that a thoroughly practical man lias stated that if the work were let by contract, the use of the machinery and blocks being allowed, he would undertake to lay those blocks in stock for £5,000 and hold himself responsible for any damage done to the machinery. Surely if this can be done it puts a very different face on the matter to that by which we have been accustomed to regard it ? The old arguments against contract-work have lost that weight which they formerly had; the machinery, blocks and everything are there, and our old hands know to their cost that they are just as likely to get work under a contractor as they were under the late regime. If there is an assurance that for so small a further sum the work can be put to some little use, then |we certainly consider that is the only rational course open for us to take. We hope that the matter will be further ventilated.