(j.—q.

114

1857. Has there been much gathering of sand following out the south breakwater?—We have not noticed it much the last few years, since they put in the stones. It has made up a good bit before that period, but we would hardly notice it lately. 1858. Where the signalman's house is?— Yes. A flagstaff was there at one time. The beach has made out on the south. It must be between 800 ft. and I,oooft. 1859. Is it far from the end of the south tip ? How far could you walk out at low water from the south tip?— Not more than 600 ft. or 700 ft. 1860. Is it still going out that way?—l think so. I think it is gradually shallowing. 1861. So that you have not come to the neutral point yet ? —No. 1862. Where does the shingle pitch—on the north side?— Yes ; it comes in right at the back, and fetches up at the back. The shingle that comes out of the river passes across the bar and goes to the north side, and spreads along to the north beach. 1863. How far has it gone out in your time—the north beach ?—lt must be somewhere nearly about the same ; there is not much difference. 1864. Notwithstanding that the tip-head is shorter, it is making in the same proportion ?—I do not think the tip-head has anything to do with it. 1865. Do you think the current is altogether dependent on the south wind ?—Yes. The prevailing wind, of course, is westerly. 1866. Have you ever been at Port Curtis, at Point Elizabeth ?—I have been there, I think, only twice. 1867. Did you anchor there?—No ; w 7 e steered round and sounded. 1868. Would you consider it a safe place for shipping in ? —No. 1869. No vessels have entered there at all ?—lt is too open, too much sea runs in there; it runs in fearfully, even from tho southward. There is no protection there at all. 1870. Is there any chance of having a strong jetty there to ship coals? would there be no chance of it standing ?—I think there would be. It is something like the breakwater—it breaks so far out that the force of the sea is broken up. That is to say, the beach shoals so gradually that the sea breaks outside in 12 or 13 fathoms of water. The broken sea would affect a vessel anchoring, but it would not affect the jetty—its force would bo spent. As a proof of this small stones may be seen lying unmoved on the tip-head. Just about the ordinary amount of damage ; very little to what you would expect, looking to the sea and the stones. 1871. Is there anything more you can give us? Have you any opinion as to whether storage should be provided for coal?— There should be a week's storage. 1872. How should that be provided, do you think?— Well, they introduced the cranes here because they said the coal was soft and easily broken. The cranes cause a good deal of detention, as there is a considerable run on the river. 1873. If they had staiths for loading instead of cranes there would be no detention ?—No. 1874. Is this mostly arising from the rapid current in the river?— Yes. 1875. A vessel having two or three hatches would have to be shifted ?—Yes ; there is a good deal of detention from that. There would be no detention as at present. This arises from the rapid current of the river. We are all night sometimes shifting or mooring a vessel incessantly. 1876. I do not see why you shift them from the cranes?— The cranes ought to be moved themselves. We cannot bring up the vessels. The vessel is placed where the shifting of the crane reaches to, and when that crane is blocked up you have to bring her on to another hatch. So if a strong current is running down you can see the difficulty. We have not shoots enough. 1877. Did you ever have them here ?—All the time before the cranes we had what was called the gadget or shifting shoots. There was less detention with them. 1878. Could you work them at high water? —No; there was a little time lost at high water. 1879. How 7 did you get the coal into them when they were higher ?—There was a third crane, and the wagons came up on an incline to abreast of the vessel. That gadget has since been taken away. They killed one and injured two or three people, letting the wagons run down. An incline would be necessary with staiths also. They would fetch the coal right over the wharf so as to give it a fall. 1880. What height was this incline here?—lt was about 9ft., I should think. 1881. What w 7 as the length of the gadget ?—lt was about 200 ft. And this gadget they put on it is just like that at Westport, only on a small scale. There was nothing to check the wagon running right through the wharf, and through the people and everything else. The contents of the wagon were shot down the shoots, and let go at the back of tho gadget. 1882. Was there no one attending upon them ?—The man let them rip at the time. There was a man at the sheds looking after them when they arrived. 1883. Then these inclines were badly planned, and were dangerous ?—Yes; they killed people. One man had his leg cut off, and another was killed. 1884. How long ago w 7 as that ?—Only about three years ago. 1885. Have these cranes only been up three years ? —Yes. 1886. These accidents must have been before the cranes ?—Yes. 1887. Do you think it would be possible to revert to this plan again—l mean this arrangement of the inclines ?—No ; not without rearranging the whole of the wharf. You would have to alter everything. In fact, you could not revert to the gadget unless we were to extend the wharf and make another arrangement altogether. You could not work shoots upon the present wharf—not with the cranes, I should think. You must have one or the other. The dip to the crane would be too high. Having once adopted the present plan w 7 e cannot go back to the shoots. Of course, as I said before, if they were to extend the wharves it might be done. 1888. You had a lot of cranes?— There was only one crane there before; now there are two hydraulics as well. The gadget has done all the work pretty well.