The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Tuesday, January 13, 1891, “BRICKS WITHOUT STRAW.”

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 556, 13 January 1891, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

Tuesday, January 13, 1891, “BRICKS WITHOUT STRAW.”

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's. Thy God's, and truth’s.

The report of C. Y. O’Connor, Marine Engineer, is now to hand concerning the utilisation of the harbor works. It is a voluminous report, dealing with the history of the work. But the conclusion arrived at is to the point: there is no beating about the bush, and giving half and-half opinions which can be interpreted just according to the views of those who happened to be reading the report. He frankly confesses that he has found it a very difficult matter, like “ making bricks without straw,” to try and give a design for utilising the present works, but nevertheless he makes a recommendation, the principle of which is to get a wall out on the west side (from a line with Custom house street) projecting beyond the shelter of the existing eastern wall. He estimates that this can be done for an expenditure of X’21,000, including ,£2,000 for contingencies ; this could be obtained as follows—cash in hand, Z 5,220; materials, ; saleable value of plant, £11,390; total, £23,461. The blocks on hand would be blasted

and used as far as they would go, and rock would be used for the cribwork. A compact harbor would thus be given, with a depth at entrance of from ten to

twelve feet at low water, and fifteen to seventeen feet at high water, but some dredging would be required. Mr O’Connor tells us, what we all know, that the present works are useless if allowed to remain as they are. He expresses the opinion that there is no appreciable body of sand from the westward and that the spit is due to local influences. But still he strongly condemns the site adopted and regrets that at any rate Sir John Coode’s principle was not adhered to, the results of all Solid walls like the present showing, unless there is a large river or estuary to maintain deep water alongside, that it is almost impossible to predicate the effect. He quotes the arguments in favor of a deviation from Sir John Coode’s plan, and reduces those worthy of consideration to the simple argument that the probable cost of Sir John Coode’s design was beyond the resources of the Board, while the one adopted was not. But this argument, says Mr O’Connor, is as little supportable as the others. Coode’s estimate was /246,400; the one adopted (which does not go so far out to sea or afford such facilities for future improvements) was £1 75,000, but the former included the extra of 1,490 for sheltering arms or jetties, not provided for in the adopted design. Then if the masonry with rubble filling is ignored for timber, as in the adopted design, it would reduce the estimate from Z'lo.yso to £2,750 — thus reducing the total to X‘tB6,9to, Allowing for ths high price for concrete set down by Coode being reduced to the price in the estimate of the adopted scheme (still including Z‘35,000 for railway to quarry ; blockyard, buildings, surveys, plant, and machinery, without allowing anything for proceeds of sale of machinery when done with), it would come to quite £2 7,000 less. Thus the work on Sir John Coode’s lines, while better situated, with much less risk of failure and greater facilities for future improvements, would only have cost about £ 160,000 as compared with about X 175,000 for the adopted plan. Mr O’Connor goes on to put to blush, of course in a dignified, official way, the implication that the scheme known as •hi- harbor of refuge, and estimated to cost <450,000, was the only feasible

alternative to the river scheme. He thinks that site even superior to the one favored by Sir John Coode, and would recommend it hereafter, in the event of any really efficient harbor for large vessels being undertaken at Gisborne in the future. He shows how, by slightly modifying the position, and adopting Coode’s principle of open viaduct, it could have been made suitable for present wants, with great advantages as to depth of water, for about £l BO,OOO, or for £130,000 without the sheltering arms. The question which the Board has now to consider is whether it is worth while moving further in the matter. For the expenditure of a further £21.000, the Marine Engineer tells us we may get 17ft of water, or 3ft less than was promised by Mr Thomson with the present expenditure. He also states that work should, begin at once so as not to lose the summer months It would be impossible to get work started before two or three months, when such matters as the disposal of the machinery have to be dealt with, so that suggestion may be overlooked. Assuming that we could get the utmost that Mr O’Connor promises the question arises would the additional expenditure be justified by so small a gain ? Of course, in arriving at an estimate we must regard the present work as completely useless without the further expenditure. It seems to us that the best policy of the Board will be to first make the necessary provision. It is clear that the wisest plan is to try and dispose of the machinery. That mustbedoneunderMr O’Connor's scheme, and as it will be of no more use to the district for years to come, it is no good leaving it as a rusty legacy for a future generation. It will take months to get it disposed of in a business-like manner. When that is done it will be time enough to decide whether any action should be taken to carry out Mr O’Connors recommendations. From present appearances it would be unwise to enter upon any fresh scheme, which after all must be of a speculative nature, with no great depth of water promised, and the prospect of having to undertake dredging when all the money had been spent. What is wanted now is relief from the oppressive rates. It would be madness to think of starting dredging just to bring boats like the Australia alongside once a week. Were a scheme of that kind attempted to be put into effect at present there would be such an outcry as would be most damaging in further advertising our troubles to the world. The best thing will be to defer the question as to whether a fresh start is advisable for another six months at least. The report is a bitter pill to swallow, but we purposely say little about the past, and the lessons which are conveyed. The pity is that Mr O’Connor’s opinion was not obtained when it was desired before going on with the training wall.