E.—4.

29

sarily any real discrepancy between the two. The discrepancy arises from the use made of his opinions and how they are applied. The Board hoped that the receipt from the Marine Department of the memorandum referred to in the margin of 20th ultimo would help to clear up the difficulty; but unfortunately it does not do so, neither do the telegrams received subsequently from the same department help towards it. Question No, 1 submitted by the Harbour Board to Sir John reads, " Drawing No. 1 shows harbour improvements sanctioned by the Government, the works of which are now in progress. Drawing No. 2 shows an extent of the area proposed to be reclaimed in No. 1, it having been found essential, for the future requirements of commerce, that more railway accommodation should be provided. The arrangements exhibited in Drawing No. 2 meet the views of the Government, Chamber of Commerce, City Corporation, and Harbour Board, by all of which bodies the plan has been adopted. The sanction of His Excellency the Governor to Drawing No. 2 is required, and only withheld pending the following expressions of opinion from Sir John Coode: Will the extension of the reclamation proposed in Drawing No. 1 to meet the requirements indicated on Drawing No. 2 prejudicially affect the scour on the bar, or curtail the tidal area to an extent calculated to be injurious to the general interests of the harbour ? " To which he replies, " Having carefully considered the question of the probable effect of the reclamation proposed to be made in connection with the new harbour and dock works at Dunedin, I am of opinion that a reclamation to the extent contemplated by the plan of 20th February last would diminish the volume of water to such an extent as to jeopardize the maintenance of the same depth of water on the bar as hitherto existing." He then recommends the position for a railway station (a question never submitted to him, but which no doubt he was induced to do, as the Marine Engineer suggests, " by his having accepted, &c"), which he places at 500 feet from the east side of Crawford Street, and parallel thereto, and then proceeds to say, " The question of the position, extent, and character of the basins and wharves on the harbour side of the railway " would be dealt with in his " general report." Now, it is evident that wharves require roadways, sheds, approaches, and other conveniences that would take up at least two or three chains more in width. Then there must be blocks between the basins, so that it must follow of a necessity that there must be reclamation outside or eastward of the line of 500 feet parallel to Crawford Street to meet these requirements, and therefore the interpretation that he intended to limit the reclamation to 500 feet is an erroneous one. The Board submits that its interpretation is the correct one, and it fits into and agrees with the fact, which cannot be contested, viz., that when in Dunedin he saw for himself reclamation going on at a greater distance (800 feet) than 500 feet from Crawford Street, and did not demur thereto. Understanding, then, Sir John Coode to mean that he cannot recommend reclamation beyond that already authorized, and that he wishes to deal with what he terms the south-western shore—that is, as the Board understands, the part opposite South Dunedin, and round to Anderson's Bay —the Board repeats that it accepts as his opinion that the extent of reclamation should not be increased; but that this opinion has nothing to do with, nor is there any reason why it should determine, the question of the position of the railway station, in regard to which the local bodies are, in the opinion of the Board, in a much more favourable position to judge than he could be. The Board could point out many local reasons why the site along Crawford Street would be very objectionable and inconvenient for the railway station, wdiilst the same reasons would not apply to the site along Castle Street, although these two streets run parallel to one another. The Board would respectfully, but strongly, urge the Government to a favourable consideration of the last paragraph of its letter of tho 12th ultimo—viz., that the Public Works Department should, together with the Board, proceed to devise a plan of railway and dock arrangements which shall fully meet the present and prospective requirements, and yet not mar the Board's financial position, or sacrifice unnecessarily the security given to bondholders for the Board's loan of £250,000. For more than three years the Board has been desirous of, and aiming at, tkis desideratum ; but hitherto its efforts have only ended in delays and harassments, which are but other terms for the waste of public funds. This is a condition of things which the Board trusts the Government will not perpetuate, but speedily bring to a conclusion. The Board regrets that the weather has been so very unfavourable lately that it has been found impossible to carry out a satisfactory test of the tidal currents, required by Sir John Coode; but these, together with plans showing work already done and contracted for, together with borings, &c., will all be forwarded as early as possible. I have, &c, JonN L. Gillies, The Officer in Charge, Marine Department. Secretary.

No. 26. Telegrams referred to in Otago Harbour Board's Letter, 4th July, 1878. Dunedin, 24th June, 1878. Urgent. Mr. Blackett's memorandum not clear. He says, "Adhere to original plan— i.e., 500 feet parallel to Crawford Street." Now, original authorized plan, excepting at Steamers' Basin, is 800 feet. Are we to understand Sir John Coode and Mr. Blackett to mean adhere to original plan, and set aside 500 feet from Crawford Street for railway station ? This is the only way it appears the two statement can be reconciled. The embankment from Anderson's Bay nearly to Steamers' Basin is on line of Castle Street, and was being run on that line when Sir John Coode was here. John L. Gillies, The Officer in Charge, Marine Department. Secretary.