[Text]
[Image of page 3]
OBSERVATIONS
ON
THE HARBOUR OF AUCKLAND.
THE period having passed when there is any probability of the Provincial Council being again summoned before the dissolution, leaving the course now open to any one to enter on discussions of the Acts of the Provincial Government, and the differences which have arisen between the administrative and deliberating branches so very little known to the public; it is but fair to the Provincial Council that the truth be stated in the many points on which the public have been misled for want of faithful reports, there being no independent member in the Council, holding any interest or influence over any journal of the day; to prevent garbled statements which the influence of the Executive formerly editor of one of them, has known how to work so as use to very great extent to give a false colour to his doings and sayings in the conduct of Government business. There is one subject before going into more general questions demanding immediate attention, because a section of the public have under false information interfered too hastily by signing a petition cooked up with falsehood and sophistry, attempted to save the administration from the just condemnation for assuming the power to expend money and to perform works of great magnitude upon the opinion of one person only without any investigation of its accuracy, and without any previous request to the Council for their approbation or investigation.
To do this in a proper explanatory manner, to enable the public to be accurately informed, will occupy both time and space which cannot to do justice be avoided. If in the newspapers in several communications. I shall therefore set out with that one which concerns the province most as a question of progressive improvements, to keep our harbour in advance of all others in New Zealand. I look upon this question of Harbour improvements, as of much greater moment than the Seat of Government question, or even of separation, in what manner and in what position they should be done to secure at a reasonable rate, that accommodation which we require towards promoting our harbour as a depot or free wharehousing port for commerce, without interfering with future requirements, which time and circumstances alone can develope, and to avoid injuring in the smallest degree our natural advantages, and the available extent of navigable water.
A scheme of Harbour Works is not a question merely for an Engineer, it is not strictly professional at all unless for an Engineer
[Image of page 4]
who has been engaged in such works before, and had experience of the obstacles to be avoided, and the natural circumstances to be taken advantage of in placing them in proper position. The building of the works when these points are settled is for the Engineer undoubtedly, but before he can undertake these he requires the aid or experience of the sub-marine Engineer, and of both ship-masters and merchants acquainted with the requirements, as well as with the differences attending discharging in rivers, on open quays, and in docks. The Engineer is a professional man so far as his work and actual experience goes, and no further.
I now propose to handle the Engineer's report in comparison with that of the Council, to ascertain what ground there was for such a hasty proceeding as that of a section of the Wharfage community, signing a petition full of false statements, and of sophistry, to deceive unthinking men, even to the leading them to abet the Superintendent in the violation of the law, and to set aside the Council from the performance of that duty for which they were special elected by by the people at large.
If I can I will try to offer such a sketch as will show the difference of taking a proper advantage of the resources we have without making any encroachment on the navigation, contrasted with the wild and unscientific scheme by the Engineer of the Province, who should from his position have nothing to do with the harbour trusts, but which should be put without any intermediate authority, under a marine Engineer, paid by the trusts themselves, which if the merchants will not undertake should nevertheless not be left to any one man, but by commission of not less than three persons to prosecute such works as they would recommend when approved, and the means given them for raising the money, by the full and proper provincial authority.
It is difficult to see what there is in the committee's report of a factious character, when they agree in every particular but one, with the Engineer's recommendations, and the sums required to perform the works were given and not objected to; the only difference being a preference of a wharf in Freeman's Bay, should funds permit instead of one in Gore Street, and had the question been submitted to them they would have recommended the Break Water from Point Britomart, north of Customs Street, to be as recommended also by Capt. Daldy, and at one time partly executed by the harbour board, although afterwards removed by Casey, this was also recommended by Mr. Utting, and recognized to become the base of the final dock works by Sir William Dennison, also in Rafferty's plan who proposed simply in meantime to take advantage of the stone for taking his outer break to the 3 fm. line of Commercial Bay N. W., proposing to deepen the inside to 22 feet, and to produce the work on to the point shown; Mr. Rafferty would not have adopted FitzRoy's landing step as a point to spring from had he not found them already raised above water, although he does not say where, but most likely from Point Britomart to the centre position, where as he says the 1 fathom and 3 fathom line nearly coincide. Mr. William Brown also recommended a quay from Britomart to Customs and Fort Streets, and had the Engineer
[Image of page 5]
adopted this plan that quay would have been as sheltered as Gore Street Jetty and would have formed the road round Point Britomart recommended by the present Engineer. A facing of timber and fillings from the tunnel of Custom Street, would have made this at as cheap a cost as the jetty, and which latter when the building sections are to be occupied must be removed. The Superintendent could have obtained leave from the City Board to cut through the tunnel, and perhaps the City would have given aid.
Mr. W. Brown recommends also a pier from Soldier's Point, and another from Smale's Point; now Smale's Point was under formation by Capt. Daldy, and as the debris will show was converging to the point for the centre opening marked by Rafferty, Simpson, Utting, Rattray. Question to Capt. Daldy, (report 1853): How would you propose to give protection to coasters and cargo boats? Answer: By a wharf north of Customs Street; meaning evidently crossing the Bay near the Breakwater, commenced by the Harbour Board.
Mr. Utting's most sensible plan was not to impede the ebb tide, but to adopt the principle recommended by other Engineers, that of a curve from Point Britomart to the 3 fm., marked by Rafferty, which would form 2 docks, as large each of them as most in England; Rafferty's plan for accommodating his works to the former break, left too much hollow on the outside which would have all silted in and been useless.
On Mr. Simpson's plan the opening came to the same place for entrance, but was also carried round Point Britomart nearly at low water to take in the proposed railway.
Mr. Utting proposed a curve from point Britomart between Simpson's and Rafferty's, taking no account of Rail Works. Either of these plans would have allowed the full action of ebb to act on the face of the dock, and also not prevent the scouring action to any other works in Mechanic's Bay, hereafter.
Mr. Utting recommended the east and west Break-water from low-water Point Britomart to Wharf. The Wharf end, say 400 feet, faced for Quay on both sides; opening 60 feet, centre 500 feet, rough pitch, not faced, opening 60 feet, and from point Britomart, about 400 feet to be faced as much as would be required, after the proposed reclamation for road from Customs to point Britomart Railway, was made according to Engineer's report. Now when it was proposed to run the road to Britomart point, it is evident all that face would, as Mr. Brown recommended, make a Quay and be better sheltered than Gore street jetty, and being 600 feet long, would be equal to both sides of that jetty.
The Committee then only differed in this last item, which they thought would be better provided as the road proceeded; and they recommended Freeman's Bay for the immediate outlay of that cost, and that as the break across would cost less than even further projections of point Britomart, it would also obtain the desired shelter more perfectly, and the whole of Customs street would be available, and more than an equivalent for the jetty.
The writer has been engaged in discharging and loading in the open Sea, in Roadsteads, in Harbours, in Rivers, in tidal Basins, in
[Image of page 6]
Canals, in wet Docks and is entirely of opinion that no Harbour improvements are of much value which do not embrace the ultimate of a wet Dock, and that in them the warehouse is essential, and to be as near as possible to the discharging vessel.
Mr. Carleton's assertion that all harbours silt up, and that the dredge is sufficient to keep them free, shews an unpardonable ignorance of the subject, because it is wholly untrue; there are numerous cases where the dredge has been unable when not assisted by the natural and direct operation of a strong ebb to preserve the water originally existing.
The writer has been told there was a plan to run a Wharf far enough out to gain 4 fathoms outside, and a Quay parallel with the tide; presuming that in our time the silting did not affect the face, it must be nearly perpendicular and very carefully faced with stone or wood, if with much slope it could not be used, and would more readily silt up; however built, the expense would be equally great and perhaps greater than building the same extent of Quay forming wet Dock cut out of the Flats; and without the possibility of erecting any Warehousing contiguous, this alone would discourage foreign commerce making a free depot of this port.
It may be asked what is to be done meantime to discharge the larger foreign vessels, if the wharf is to be removed or not carried further out. The answer is, to adopt the proposal of the Chairman of the Harbour Commissioners in 1854, when his opinions were thought worthy of attention. This plan was to build large receiving warehouse with centre opening to receive large flat lighters of not less than 100 tons, nor drawing more than 6 feet water; a lighter of this description would find work enough for one day or two days, this would not delay the vessel discharging at her moorings; when laden they would be brought and closed in in the centre of the warehouse, and the goods discharged to either side as bonded or otherwise; merchants would then arrange for the delivery as suited convenience. The time of rain or night the lighter being closed in with grating doors would be safe, and with an officer sleeping on board. This is not an imaginary scheme, it is one adopted by friends of the proposer to a large extent in London river, during the corn law time, and was largely used and highly approved. These lighters could also be used to bring large stone from Rangitoto to build the wet docks, to ballast ships, which would then get the quantity paid for, &c., the boatman would not like this; thus the necessity to go further out would be removed. The proposer gave his opinion gathered from some years attention to such subjects: that the going out of the wharf beyond the intended limit of wet docks would carry the silting out with it and the necessity would arise when the wet docks were made for the removal of both wharf and silt at whatever cost, or the entrances could not be kept open. It is no longer an opinion it is now a fact proved, and by which you may be assured that to again go further out will produce the same result causing increased expense for its removal, and retarding both by time and increasing difficulties the permanent works. If then you now a third time outlay £20,000 to
[Image of page 7]
go further out you will have but a temporary convenience at immense cost, which in 3 or 4 years will give no more water than at present,
The certainty is established that if Queen Street wharf carries the silting out with an open pile wharf, then the solid reef built as a Breakwater at Point Britomart will act with double the amount of silting, injury and expense, which no dredging will be capable of arresting; the water will soon shoal within it, and the entrance to dock become scarcely possible to be kept free.
If any new Ts are put they should be placed on the line of future permanent quay so as to be swallowed up in their final construction; this, with the lighters, would afford all the accommodation required until the docks for Commercial Bay, are ready for use.
ENGINEER'S REPORT.
It will be seen in reference to the plan that the Wharfage accommodation which I propose to provide, comprises,
First, The widening of the present Queen Street Pier, and extending it to water of sufficient depth to allow first class vessels to come alongside a wharf (called "Queen's Wharf,") to be built at the end of the pier.
Secondly, Wharfage accommodation along the inside face of the Breakwater; and
Thirdly, The entire front of the proposed "Commercial Road" from Queen Street Wharf to Mechanics' Bay (except where it crosses Point Britomart) to be available as a public Wharf or Quay.
Remarks--his last, No. 3, if stone pitched preparatory to filling in, would by any opening being left become the same mens as proposed formerly for a temporary inner harbour, and which the Engineer condemned. That proposed by the Council would be about 250 feet further out. The Engineer's would have been smaller area than that one proposed in the Committee's evidence. Thus the Council's Committee had in view so soon as the Superintendent should recommend the subject to consideration, the plan proposed in evidence which would have been equally available for road, &c., efficient for protection or Quay, until built on. The cost at £3000. The Engineer's road, £12,000.
ENGINEER'S REPORT.
The widening the present pier I consider necessary for two reasons, first, to provide increased facilities for the traffic along the pier itself and to and from the proposed New Wharf; and secondly, to preserve and strengthen the present structure as much as possible, and eventually to provide means for its gradual re-construction.
I have before referred to the filling in with ballast that portion of the pier extending to Low-water. This work should ultimately be faced with masonry on both sides, beyond the boundary of land to be reclaimed, commencing at the Road marked "Commercial Road" and terminating at Low-water mark, beyond which it would be inexpedient to carry masonry, on account of there being no good foundation obtainable without great expense; and because I consider it would be preferable to have an open work beyond this point.
Remark. -Why this should be preferable to remain an open
[Image of page 8]
pile; from Low-water when Docks are to go to six feet, and Britomart to be a solid quay 1000 feet further out-is not very clear.
ENGINEER'S REPORT.
Making the estimated amounts, £33,000, £49,000, and £88,000 respectively,
It would of course be practicable to finish this work either with a rough pitched slope on the inside, similar to, but steeper than the external or seaward face; but in this case it would be a breakwater only: or it could be faced with a timber wharf on the inside, the outer row of piles or timber uprights being placed at the foot of the slope of the tone embankment to enable vessels to come alongside, as shown by dotted lines on the section.
Remark. -This quay would give equal at 60 feet to only one side the Wharf, for £88,000.
COMMITTEE REPORT THEREON.
This evidence is laid on the table, and from it the Committee have come to conclusions, recommending the following resolutions for adoption by the Council:--
1. That no efficient accommodation can be given warranting so large an outlay as £88,000 on the breakwater at Point Britomart.
ENGINEER'S REPORT.
The cost of this Breakwater will depend very much on the period at which the work is executed. If, as I assume will probably be the case, this part of the harbour improvements be deferred until the completion of the Drury railway--y which time also the Provincial Government may possibly be able to arrange with the Imperial authorities for the possession of Point Britomart--the cost of bringing in stone for the masonry will be very much reduced, and a portion of the material for the middle of the work might be obtained from the excavations in Point Britomart.
If to be deferred it could not form any part of other works for present Bill.
Regarding the execution of all those works which interfere with the Ordnance land at Point Britomart as deferred for the present, I have only estimated the cost of constructing the roadway across Mechanics' Bay, according to the transverse section shown, and connecting it with Custom House street by the temporary road round Point Britomart. --William Brown Quay.
Why then does Superintendent take a contract for an extent and work not recommended by Engineer?
This work--by far the most important--will also be the most expensive portion of the improvements required in the harbour, and if carried out as designed in the tranverse section shown on the drawings, would be rendered very costly by the heavy masonry required to form the inside face, a considerable portion of which would have to be set by divers. It is, however, very desirable that the inside of this work should be faced as proposed, so that it msy be available for wharfage. And I am further of opinion that it is always preferable to make public works of this class as permanent as possible, especially when the funds expended on them are raised by loan.
Remark. -This only gives berths for 6OO feet, or six or seven ships to discharge on an open quay for £88,000.
[Image of page 9]
The continuation of the Commercial Road, north of Custom House Street, to the present pier, should be deferred until after the construction of the Breakwater, a portion of which (out to low-water mark) might at once be undertaken with advantage.
Then why go beyond when not recommended?
After speaking of the Wharf, the other works, all of which involve more or less interference with the Ordnance Land at Fort Britomart, must of necessity stand over for the present.
Is it possible to suppose the money given for the Wharf was to be applied to works not recommended by Engineer?
COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
2. That the present Works should be stopped at low-water mark.
3. That the water outside the low-water line ought not to be interfered with until the Railway works are further developed.
As recommended by Engineer.
Why undertake works the most expensive and of greater magnitude, before the knowledge required is obtained?
The Admiralty Charts referred to show the "three fathom line" as extending up the Queen street pier at a distance of about 250 feet from its Northern end, whereas, at present the depth of water at the end of the pier is 16 1/2 feet only, and the "three fathom line" is about 30 feet beyond the end of the pier. This alteration, caused by the silting up of this part of the Harbour, extends also to the low water line, which is also considerably changing.
These changes in the bed of the harbour, which are constantly going on, show the necessity for arriving at the existing state of things by actual surveys, before any extensive works are undertaken.
The extension of the pier to deep water and the construction of a new Wharf parallel to the tideway, are works much to be desired, and should be built in the strongest and most substantial manner, as the great length of piles required here (from 60 to 70 feet) make their renewal very expensive.
INFORMATION BY EVIDENCE.
6. What further works are in progress?
An extension of Queen-street Wharf, 55 feet in length and a T east in the whole length, 360 feet by 60 feet wide. It is also proposed to widen the wharf 20 feet, as well to strengthen it to provide for the traffic during its reconstruction which must take place at no distant date. In making this addition it is proposed to straighten the sides as shewn on the plan. There is also an extension of the new T of 70 feet recently, contracted for.
Which was never known. Nor full and true statement made thereof to Council as per Act.
ENGINEER'S REPORT.
The cost of the repairs and additions to the present pier, I cannot estimate at less than £11,000 (Eleven thousand pounds) and the erection of a new wharf in its entirety, as shown on the plan, would at present prices, cost about £20,000 (twenty thousand pounds).
New Wharf in its entirety......£20,000
Repairs and additions........£11,000
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .£31,000
Money by Bill given for Improvements and New Wharf... £30,000
[Image of page 10]
COMMITTEE REPORT.
4. That the proposed improvements at the end of Queen-street Wharf, capable of berthing three ships on the outside, appear to be desirable.
The other works not reported are extension of another T 70 feet as above. A wharehouse no where mentioned, and Gore Street Jetty a contingent work and the 650 feet along Custom Street.
Thirdly, The construction of a Wharf 20 feet in width and about 650 feet in length along the front of Custom House Street (east of the pier) with a jetty at right angles thereto, 100 feet in length.
This Contract taken for 400 feet, without reference to Council.
This last work has been undertaken in order to relieve the Queen Street Pier of a portion of the traffic which now encumbers it--especially that connected with the timber trade, firewood, &c.
It is anticipated that this work will be reproductive to such an extent as to defray in a very few years the cost of its construction.
Committee recommend Freeman's Bay in lieu.
So far as I can ascertain, the most urgent want now, is increased Wharfage accommodation. This will, to some extent, be provided for small vessels by the works now in progress in Custom House street, which might he increased, if deemed necessary by the extension of the jetty in line with Gore-street, and the erection of a similar jetty off the end of Albert-street.
I would, therefore, reccomend that the extension of the Queen-street pier, and the construction of a portion of the "Queen's wharf" at the end thereof, Bay about 500 feet, be at once commenced, the present pier being of course maintained in good repair, and strengthened and widened by degrees, as required.
Demand for this £30,000, given.
BY EVIDENCE-ENGINEER.
By Mr. King--I propose an extension of Albert-street to meet the line of proposed Commercial Road enclosing land proposed for a Custom House
By Mr. Swanson--It is proposed to effect a reclamation of land when it can be made between Custom House-street and Commercial Road to Point Britomart, leaving Building Section 4 chains deep. I am not aware that it is proposed to reclaim this year.
COMMITTEE REPORT.
5. That the Projection of Albert Street should be carried out in the same line as the street as early as funds shall be available.
6. That the Queen-street Wharf traffic would be more effectually relieved by a Wharf at the Eastern side of Freeman's Bay, at a point near Harding street, than by any Wharf at Custom House street.
8. That immediate steps should be taken to place the Harbour Trusts and the execution of Harbour Works under a Board of Commissioners instead of under the hands of the Superintendent, as at present in order to avoid in future the necessity of disapproving works after they are undertaken; and that a comprehensive general Plan of the Harbour from Mechanics' Bay to Freeman's Bay, inclusive, should be invited by the Government from persons competent to draw such plan.
WM. POWDITCH, Chairman.
[Image of page 11]
No part of this report was attended to but the extreme insolence of forwarding a copy of the Superintendent's letter to P. Casey and Salmon and others, informing them that he (the Superintendent) was much gratified by their petition and should carry out his contract without regard to the law, or opinions of Council.
The proper course would be to construct the works in accordance with original water, and then dredge the silt back to that position.
Having now shown that in the two reports, there is no disagreement of the works to be immediately executed, but in the Gore Street Jetty which as Custom House Street had been newly faced and authority given to land thereon; there was thus an increase of Wharfage provided of 1000 feet wholly for coasters and cargo boats, and if that portion of break then done, had given protection to these vessels or boats, it would seem that Gore Street Jetty was not wanted, besides that a contemplated reclaiming of that land was noted in report, for building sites, also the proposal to make a road round from Custom Street to Fort Britomart, which would give a further quantity of 6OO feet quay room. It seemed needless therefore to outlay £3,150 for a temporary work, to be removed in two or three years at most. And therefore the Committee thought the money if to be spared from the Queen Street Wharf would be more advantageously spent ia making a Wharf at Freeman's Bay; and if the £12,000 is to be taken from the vote for Wharf how is that money to be again obtained? the Harbour being now £60,000 in debt.
Now we will give the clauses under which the Superintendent holds the temporary management, under votes of Council, on full and true account.
RESERVES ACT, CLAUSE 6.
The management of such lands within each province, so to be vested in the Superintendent thereof, shall be carried on and conducted by such Superintendent, and with the advice of his Executive Council, in case there be such Council, and such management and administration shall continue until other provision be made in that behalf, by some Act or Ordinance of the Provincial Council to be passed in manner herein-after mentioned.
The General Assembly had no power then to set aside constitution act, and therefore did not give independent power to Superintendent, but to carry on under vote of Council.
Query, does this clause warrant the Superintendent declining to send down a bill for a Harbour board, or does it warrant him in the determination by answer to the demand for a board, to say that he would only consent to a Board by Bill provided ho named all the Commissioners.
RESERVES ACT, CLAUSE 9.
The Superintendent of the province, shall, as soon as conveniently may be, lay before the Provincial Council thereof full and true particulars of all the transactions matters and things whatsoever in any way relating to the management and administration of the said lands so to be vested in him as aforesaid.
If council have no control why lay things before them?
[Image of page 12]
Query, has he given a true and full account when he has not said which of the Works out of the £170,000 he proposed to cover with the £30,000.
CLAUSE 10.
All rents, issues, profits and proceedings arising from such land within each Province, and from the sale, mortgage, and other disposition thereof, shall from time to time he paid and accounted for to the Provincial Treasurer of such Province, or other person acting in that behalf, and shall be appropriated in such manner as the Superintendent and Provincial Council of such Province shall by any Act or Ordinance, to be duly passed in that behalf, direct.
Superintendent says I shall not ask your approval or give you a full and true account of what I mean to do; I shall expend the monies according to the approval of Casey and Salmon.
CLAUSE 11.
The Superintendent and Provincial Council of any Province may by any Act or Ordinance duly passed in that behalf regulate the management, and administration, of the lands so to be vested in the Superintendent of such Province.
Does not this place the Superintendent, management and expenditure, under control of Provincial Council?
CONSTITUTION ACT, CLAUSE 25.
It shall not be lawful for any Provincial Council to pass, or for the Superintendent to assent to any Bill appropriating any money to the public service, unless the Superintendent shall first have reccommended to the Council to make provision for the specific service to which such money is to be appropriated, and no such money shall be issued or issuable, except by warrants, to be granted by the Superintendent.
Now no specific work was recommended, except the improving and extension of Queen Street Wharf, which estimated in the report as £31,000, £30,000 was given, therefore other works must mean other works consequent upon the operations on the wharf, viz., Mooring, Fenders, filling in, &c., new T 70 feet and a Store not known because not mentioned, or otherwise if any lawyer should construe it to mean any other work, in the Engineer's report. It must be remembered, Superintendent did not reccommend any other specific work out of the various works, costing in the whole £140,000, consequently the Council's report could give no authority to pay for any other specific work, but, shows grounds upon which a Bill ought to be sent down, stating the sums actually inserted for the wharf and to what amount for each other work, specifically to be applied to, if there should be any balance left; consequently not only was the excess of works, not recommended by Engineer or Council viz:-- £5,000, for the extension, but, also that of Gore Street Jetty for £3,150 which was objected to before commencing, while Council wera made aware that there is a clause in the contract agreement, enabling the Superintendent, to stop the work at any place, or point of its execution; but there does not appear
[Image of page 13]
any clause enabling him to give the Contractor quarried stone, and labour, to load free of charge; an occurrence which is said to have taken place, although none of the other contractors knew it. If the opposition was factious, why did not Government make a house, and out-vote them? because Government never could make a house:-- no one member would sit to support the Executive; in his attempt to create a dead lock, by keeping the estimates from being closed. By the foregoing comparison of the Engineer's and the Committee's reports, is it not a fallacy to charge the Council as factious, or opposed to harbour improvements. Does not the evidence which was printed and in the hands of the Executive, point out the Break-water E. and W. to form the inner Harbour in accordance with Mr. Daldy's answer to Committee on Harbour Works 1853 to question. How would you provide protection for coasters, and cargo boats? Answer, by a wharf north of Customs Street.
Customs Street not then being made, gave the whole area up to Fort Street, more or less about 800 feet by 1200 feet.
William Brown's answer to Committee 1853.
By a pier from Soldier and from Smale's points now Smale's pier being in formation by Daldy and as the debris shows was curving as it went out pointing to the entrance marked by the Engineers we may conclude that Soldiers point Pier, was also to curve to give protection from N. E. and N.
I have endeavoured so show by a sketch applied to the chart of the Harbour; a comparative view of the course of Docking and Warehousing, which in my opinion should govern the progressive Works of this harbour, and to point out the unavoidable results which will attend the too hasty conclusions, made on the plan proposed by the Engineer of the Province.
In doing this I must premise that there is apparently a great mistake made by the mercantile community, as to the uses and benefits of Dock Works, which will apply to the present Engineer's plan, with irressistible force to any one, who has experienced the difference between open quay landing and the immediate deposit, in warehouses, promoting the safety of goods, and especially the establishment of a depot for foreign commerce under the conditions of a free port, and upon which the prosperity and ultimate success of the harbour and city of Auckland depend for a permanent superiority; so that even the removal of the seat of Government either now or hereafter, to an inland position, would not injure, but rather confirm the superiority of our position for free commerce. The seat of Government is to me of secondary importance to the question of the right management of our harbour; and if so, then we see how important it is to avoid a crude, indigested, or hasty project.
The infraction of the law so foolishly supported by a section of the community, and now going on, will not be my present object, but a comparison of the merits and benefits of the schemes proposed. I shall first observe on the proper view of the ends sought for:-- increased accommodation, security of goods, and local inducements to draw foreign commerce to us, as a free depot for trade.
The first port in England which brought prominently in view the
[Image of page 14]
right use and benefit of the establishment of properly appointed docks was Liverpool. There they had an extensive flat opposite the town, over which only small craft could approach to land at high water. The idea among people in ordinary was to commence the first dock towards remedying this evil, by taking up as an advantage a position nearest to the sea, contiguous to the first incurve of the land in the river's course, but the decision given after a most careful consideration, not on one man's opinion but many, was the reverse viz., to begin at the upper end of their shoal water bay, and gradually extend as needed downwards. By doing so they urged they would avoid the effect of the sea, throwing up the debris above them, and so forming banks, and the silting up to a greater extent both the flat and the river bed opposite: but by commencing at the upper end they carried down with them an increasing strength on the ebb, to wash the face of their works and keep the entrances free of silt. The last dock constructed not many years ago, called the Prince of Wales Dock, is about 13 acres; and one of their finest was constructed as a finish at the lower position, where it had been first proposed by the merchants to be the first place of commencement. Having so extensive a flat, Liverpool was enabled to build, in connection with their docks, extensive warehouses, and devote also a large portion of the reclaimed land for town building purposes. This was the secret of their success over the London trade at the time, by drawing through their port a large proportion of the wollen and cotton trade, from the west to the midland and northern counties, and enabled them to compete with London as a depot and free port.
Auckland docs not possess such a breadth of flats, nor require to reclaim for building purposes, otherwise than as in connection with her dock and warehousing operations. Auckland has plenty of room for extension, west and south, to advantage; and the proper prosecution of her dock works will likewise be best promoted by working them out of the flats in Freeman's Bay, where there is better and more abundant room, and less affected by the silting of the river bed. The area of Freeman's Bay is also better adapted for the mercantile part of the town than that of Queen-street. The London merchants did not appreciate the proper use and value of wet docks, some giving an opinion that they would not pay, while other persons, experienced in the shipping trade, gave their opinion that it was an essential point to be insisted upon, that wet docks should be in contiguity with the city, to avoid lighterage; and the first committee of enquiry are reported to have so little understood the question that they reported, "that wet docks do not necessarily imply quays, much less the delivery on quays." In three years further consideration light broke in upon them, and the then committee reported that they were inclined to consider any plan for improvement of the port imperfect of which wet docks did not form a part.
The value of the warehousing system was still only partially understood. The East India Docks were a failure for want of warehouses. They comprised an area, in two docks together, of 30 acres, since taken by the West India Dock Company, who are
[Image of page 15]
remedying the defects by erection of warehouses. The West India old Docks were two, each narrow and long (400 and 500 feet wide respectively.) They have a tier of warehouses down the quay between them, and, by their warehousing, were the best paying, until St. Catherine, which is only 11 acres water and 23 in all, comprising warehouses and quays, (nearly the space contained in Commercial Bay, within the six feet line, allowing a tier of warehouses along Custom-street.) A tier of warehouses also runs down the centre of St. Chatherine, and the goods are taken by cranes from the ship's hold into the first floor of the wharehouse, the lower part having an open space for immediate communication with the ship. It is capable of containing 120 ships, having 4,600 feet quay frontage, can provide stowage for 100,000 tons goods; puts through its gates 1000 ships in the year. The amount proposed for Point Britomart Breakwater, which would only give tidal births for six or eight ordinary ships, would make the arm of the outer quay from Point Britomart to the natural position of three fathoms low water, pointed out by the other engineers, and 6OO feet less in the navigable stream. This could be deepened for tidal basin to 16 feet, or wet dock 22 feet, as shewn by Mr. Rafferty. There would then be only the filling in of the wharf sufficiently wide to receive a tier of warehouses, and after the projection of Albert pier, to form two good docks, averaging eight to ten acres, in proportion to the space proposed to be taken off for warehouses in addition to those which ought to be erected on both fronts of Custom-street.
Noav before I go further, I will make a short explanation of the proposals in Freeman's Bay; but it must be remembered that being now so far compromised in Commercial Bay, that bay must first be made available by the completion of such works as the inner harbour, and tidal basin to six feet mark, which could be deepened to 12 feet low water, or give 18 to 20 feet for wet dock. Surely if it be consistent to spend £100,000 to give quay room one-quarter of a mile from warehouses for six births, it is more prudent to spend £200,000 to give secure docking and warehousing for 60 to 80 vessels, besides making the inner harbour available for coasters and boats, until required for buildings. Presuming that Albert projection be continued out to 6 feet, and thence parallel with tide, to the entrance before mentioned, and thus the preliminary docks made, I propose the next space to Nelson-street to remain as a tidal basin, and to be used finally instead of the inner harbour when built upon in Commercial Bay. In this part there would be no drainage. Secondly, the silting up by the proper projection of the two outside piers, which need not be water tight, would be prevented from throwing in by the uninterrupted exercise of the ebb. The silting up on the 3 fathom line west of Albert point being much weakened and finishing entirely about Chalky Point, I therefore would continue from Nelson-street, taking Custom House-street as a common street base, placing the docks North and South in pairs, that is 2, or if found convenient 3, having one common entrance basin; the basins not less than one acre, nor more than 2 acres area. The outer quays only next the outside water flow would
[Image of page 16]
require tight water works or puddling. The quays between each of these docks not less than 300 feet wide, for building warehouses upon, and carried out after as required, the foundations being laid in by solid work for the future buildings. The other portion could be filled in by any convenient material, without any regard had to being water tight, or water tight compartments made in centre. Thus any portion of these docks could be used mean time as tidal docks; and by completing the flood gates enclosing them, any one or more, when required for wet docks, might be finished for that purpose. The excavations could be used in the filling in the quays, excluding a space next to Chalky Point, which might hereafter be required as a tidal basin, or landing for boats to that part of the city, when extended beyond Freeman's Bay. The area would give about 50 acres water, about 10,000 feet of quay, with an area for 400,000 tons warehouses, exclusive of Custom-street, and all within it of 150,000 square feet. The tidal basin for coast trade and boats could be maintained at a depth of 6 feet or deeper at low water; the area 18 to 20 acres. Thus we should have 70 acres west of Albert Point, and 20 acres in Commercial Bay, capable of forming wet docks from 16 to 22 feet deep, without either trespassing on the navigable part of the river, or the entrances being choked up by silt.
Now having got to Queen-street wharf again, we are first informed that it is to be filled in solid to low water mark, and from that point to be always, as being preferable, an open piled wharf. Why if this is proper to remain a piled wharf, for what benefit is Point Britomart to be a solid reef? If Point Britomart is to be solid, why not Queen-street wharf, so far as will be required to work in to form subsequently the wet dock or tidal dock of Commercial Bay? It has been shewn that the break-water will not protect either the ships or the wharf outside low water. Its intended use then in that respect is a failure; and if it were piled as close and heavy as Queen-street wharf, it would give all the temporary protection which Queen-street wharf effectually does to all such vessels as would find water deep enough to lay west of it. Now at Queen-street wharf the bay has already silted out 280 feet, and without doubt is the consequence of its being so placed. Most likely the 3 fathom and 6 feet mark at Rafferty's dock entrance has also suffered, which was expected. Here then will be an increased expense to dredge the river back to its former lines; and shews us, that to maintain a clear entrance to Commercial Docks, whatever they may be, so soon as those docks are available to the 16 feet vessels, the wharf outside should be removed. Now in following the course of the tide or upper currents, we find the ebb acting from Stoke's Point on the whole face of Freeman's Bay, gradually pushing the six feet mark back, without influence on the 3 fathom line; but when that line crosses the Queen-street wharf, this three fathom line also retreats till they nearly come together in Commercial Bay, at the position chosen by Mr. Rafferty, and from thence trends out again even further than at the wharf, when at Britomart point, while the 6 feet line continues its true course. From this it is evident that if Britomart Point crops out and acts on the 3 fathom line further
[Image of page 17]
than Albert Point, that by raising it up out of water, you must drive not only the 6 feet but the low water mark also, some hundreds of feet further into the stream, and thus, although you may gain a greater portion of the mud bed of the river to build the city out upon, which does not appear to me at all desirable (I would rather see the dock cut in), you must also of necessity build your docks much further out, and at much greater cost, to obtain any entrance capable of being kept open. This result is seen, not only by the effect produced by Queen-street wharf, but by every rock or reef up to the Whau Creek, showing that the silting on the south side will inevitably increase in proportion to the obstructions you make to the tide of the river. The low water mark has also gone much further out at Point Britomart than before the Queen-street wharf interrupted the tide. And it is a fact that every engineer except this last, has placed the inner line, as well as outer limit of permanent works entirely in accordance with the recommendations contained in the committee's report and its evidence. Every stone thrown on the straight line below low water mark, will cause a corresponding shoaling in Mechanic's Bay.
The sophistry that all harbours silt up is as disgraceful to those who wrote it, as it is discreditable to those who signed it, because it is not true. Harbours with piers, built with proper attention to the action of tides and currents, remain useful; witness, Torbay, and Kingston also remaining free, while Howth, its opposite, is a total failure; and in the debates, 1864, on Holyhead, consequent on its failure, it was declared that the greater number of the new harbours of refuge were a failure; and thousands of pounds have been thrown away on schemes of engineers, that the Government would do no more in future beyond supplementing an equal sum to private subscription, where it appeared desirable. Nautical surveyors condemned Holyhead. The demand had been made for a solid pier to enable mail steamers to go to it. The decision was, that in a few years it would silt up, so as to be useless. Why did not they say, when dredging demanded means would be found. No--they knew that to work against natural causes, they might as well dredge for the moon. The government reply was, to preserve that station if possible for the mail steamers, they would consent to try (the word used) to try again by erecting an open pile wharf of 400 it. Such will be the issue in Auckland of any efforts to cross the tide to the bed of the river. We now come to the comparison of the nautical points contained in the engineer's plan. The engineer tells us the break as before, (meaning the proposed alteration by Rafferty to convert it from an inner to an outer tidal basin), is not placed to resist the sea in gales at N. E. and N. N. E., because it would take the sea at right angles instead of obliquely; but the real position of the break was in the exact same direction as that recommended in the evidence, namely, E. and W., or nearly parallel with the tide. I will say nothing about the straight line being stronger than a curved line in a breakwater or quay, because it is not usual to apply a perpendicular bearing to a horizontal resistance, at right angles. Now the heaviest sea comes in at E. N. E. with tide, wind, and fetch of 4 or 5 miles, when at N. E. it has hold of the land
[Image of page 18]
at about 1 1/4 miles, and when at N. N. E., is across the tide, and the land 3/4 mile, in neither of which points can there be any sea to upset a wherry, as the Engineer's break is nearly N. and S. It is his own break which takes the heaviest sea nearly at right angles, while the former, which is the break proposed to be renewed, takes it almost parallel to E. N. E. sea, while the N. N. E. sea, from its insignificance, never could nor did disturb a single stone; Casey himself, I am told, being the sufferer, shortly after his own foolish act in removing it. Had he petitioned the Superintendent to finish it instead of removing it, all Custom-house-street face would have been available at all times, secure, without any need for Gore-street jetty. It is surprising that the Superintendent would not propose, by doing part of the permanant works of Commercial Bay, to obtain, at a less cost and more secure, 2,000 feet quay instead of, by a temporary work, obtainining only 5 or 600 feet. But then Amos & Co., would not have had any contract. It is now seen that the nautical question of the force of the sea could not by any possibility be more erroneous.
I cannot part with this breakwater, however, without some remarks on its construction, because at so flat a pitch of 3 to 1, or 70° out of perpendicular, should any vessel break adrift east of it, it would be impossible, even in moderate weather, not to have its bottom knocked out long before reaching the parapet; and being a strait pier, once within its fangs, the vessel could not escape, but which the tangent of the curve would promote either one way or the other. Now as this great spread or extension of the toe is to prevent the stone being dislodged by the sea, it may well be asked what violent sea there is in Auckland harbour by its break to take effect below six feet? It therefrom appears to me that the spread of the base might and ought to have been gradually drawn in from the four feet mark to a right angle at least, that is one in one. Wherever this extraordinary pitch can be found, is difficult to tell; it might be used on a sea coast for a railway crossing a bay, or on an open arm of the sea, and in some places would be no doubt proper. The greatest break-water and most exposed I know of, is the Plymouth, which having seen and noticed, I feel assured will not exceed if it be equal to this. My recollection is about 60°. Ordinary piers properly faced are at about 1 in 8 or 20°, but as rough stone will require greater support, although faced and laid, we may allow Sir William Denison's working plan, which is 10°, or less than 1 in 1. Now no boat or ship could go alongside such a break proposed by engineer, in any weather without being bilged, consequently it is more dangerous than a perpendicular reef would be, and damaging to the harbour in raising a supposition, vessels are not safe. Now if it were possible that damaging results should not follow during our own life; yet if we can obtain docking to a sufficient extent at less cost, by going out no further than will be necessary for obtaining a clear entrance; there can be no propriety in running even the risk of failure, and damaging the river for our successors, or need to continue sinking money to little purpose. Our river is but 2 miles by 3/4 wide, no great extent to spare a slice of 600 feet navigation for coasters, when thronged with shipping.
[Image of page 19]
Now a word on the endowments. There is more within Custom-street than any harbour works will require for 50 years to come. No credit funds can be expected hereafter unless raised on the endowments; it is therefore necessary for the intermediate time to put them to some paying use. As it is not likely any mercantile board will manage building property so diligently or very advantageously, the endowments being more than could be used by them for many years, where abundant revenue will accrue from the docks and warehouses, a large portion should be handed over to city as permanent endowments. There now are and always will be men in the City Board better versed in the mode of making leasehold property available for revenue, taking care never to swamp them by too long a lease, acccording to Superintendent, serving their friends with a slice off the front when agreeable. The city cannot by any possible taxation in its infancy do the necessary sanitary improvements without some permanent paying endowments, the requirements now being much greater in proportion than they will be in future and in prosperity. This transfer can be done by authority of Provincial Council. The portions I would point out are: all within the inner points of Freeman's bay, about 35 acres, all the intake, the Customs in Shortland and Fort-streets, some of which remain unappropriated, a portion of Mechanics' Bay from Council reserve including the native hostelry and its reserves, included by right angle lines, and a portion of Mechanics' Bay from city boundary to Stanley-street, carried out to road proposed to cross to Parnell. There are some little incidents attached to this harbour question which I have only received notice of since writing the above, viz: a new T of 70 feet, and a proposed warehouse, which in the full and true account was omitted to mention, or ask votes for; also that the Executive at the time being, who are by law to acquiesce (of course not to presume to deny) in the proposals to be laid before Council for approval, and for obtaining the money, did not know that more than was recommended by the engineer on the breakwater was to be done, viz., to low-water mark. The further extension was entirely his Honor's own affair, or perhaps known to the company of Amos and Co. only, together with the privilege of getting stone and labour free. Now we may ask what has the captains of the boat department obtained by the sanction they have given to his Honor to perform works and spend money without concurrence of Council? Simply a useless piece of work which will not protect their boats instead of a secure inner harbour, permanent, and which would have made all their wharfage safe. How sadly must any respectable Englishman grieve to see what dupes they have been made, and their boasted privilege of a Council with the duties of enquiry and and supposed power of free institutions, made a laughing stock by the most ignorant man who ever became Superintendent
Table of Estimated Cost of Works Proposed by Superintendent Engineer, in the Order Proposed.
| Extension of Wharf and T
|
£20,000
|
| Widening and Repairs, Moorings and Fender
|
11,000
|
| Break at Point Britomart
|
88,000
|
[Image of page 20]
| Albert Point in progress
|
4,000
|
| Gore-street Jetty
|
3,150
|
| Road E. side to Mechanic's Hill
|
42,000
|
| Filling in Queen-street Wharf unknown
|
|
| Temporary Road to Point Britomart, and Railway Building Reclamations Custom-street, 4 chains wide, no sum mentioned; Commercial road from Queen-street Wharf to Point Britomart, no sum mentioned; would be equal to cost of Custom-street, £15,000.
|
6,000
|
|
|
£174,150
|
Committee's Proposal.
| Wharf and T this year
No widening, because filling in to Rock Work to 6 feet would bring it to any shape required.
|
£15,000
|
| Wharf in Freeman's Bay
|
4,000
|
| Point Britomart Break to low water
|
2,500
|
| Break across to Wharf
|
3,000
|
| Extension of Albert-street
|
6,000
|
|
|
£30,580
|
Carleton said that he would save £2,500 from harbour to appropriate to revenue. This he cannot do. Debt to be repaid is not works, and is not provided for in the Bill.
SUMS ABSTRACTED PROM BILL FOR WHARF AND NOT SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR OR SANCTIONED.
| 1st The New Break to 6 feet, cost
|
£8,150 1
|
| 2nd. Gore Street Jetty, without Vote
|
3,150
|
| 3rd. Albert Street, to cover building Customs, about
|
4,000
|
|
|
£15,300
|
| Scaffolding, Custom-street, done without Vote
|
1,000
|
Votes Specifically Asked for and Given.
| Remaining available, Wharf
|
|
14,700
|
| Queen-street Wharf and Extension 60 feet
|
£20,000
|
|
| Widening and Repairs
|
11,000
|
|
|
|
£31,000
|
£31,000
|
Now on these figures will any one say the Queen street wharf and other works mean the works not enumerated in cost, but recommended to lay over till the period when railway to Drury should be completed, and Point Britomart obtained for cutting down.
When a committee adopt all the recommendations in a report although not asked by the Superintendent to do so, it is unjust to malign them and to accuse them of being factious. Such a charge having been made, the vindication ought to go to other colonies; also Mr. Carleton forgets when he was in opposition and whether he then showed factious conduct. The whole of that petition
[Image of page 21]
which persons signed in utter ignorance of the facts, is almost in the very words previously used by Mr. Carleton in the Council to hide his own mistakes and deficiency.
If Mr. Carleton could have commanded the respect of six men in the Council, he could have commanded also a house, and brought the session to a close at any time. It was the opponents themselves who made a house, which he could not do, and who insisted on passing the estimates in any shape, having discovered that Mr. Carleton intended keeping the Council sitting as long as he could, having the command of the daily papers, one of old remembrances, to put forth through their means garbled statements, intended to deceive the public, by throwing the blame of delays on Council, of which he was studiously making political capital. Those who have lived as long in New Zealand as Mr. Carleton, know how he has ever exerted himself to bring the Superintendent and Council into contention, and thus hoped to create a dead lock, to bring the provincial institutions into contempt.
Marvellous that the most ignorant man who ever sat in a Superintendent's chair should obtain and exercise more power than was ever contemplated possible; spending with impunity a larger sum of money by more than double that of any other year, and actually encouraged to continue spending on unprofitable works, rebuke the rerpesentatives of the people for enquiring into matters hid from their knowledge by deliberate deception, and the people themselves duped into signing a document got up, calling the Council a factious Council, to conceal their own arbitrary doings and to stifle enquiry.
Having gone through as much as need be, the merits and the truthfulness of this memorandum, the petition, I will make one more observation on the nature of the concluding passages. The Superintendent says he is unfortunately placed in antagonism with the Provincial Council (thus confessing that no concurrence had been asked for by him for carrying on the works objected to), that he was under the difficult position of having to choose between acceding to the wishes of the Council, or to overruling the opinion of professional men, in whom he put confidence. Now this is a perversion of fact, because the law requires him to carry out the determinations of Council, not of other persons. There was therefore no difficulty, even had the opinions mentioned been corrrect. His business was not himself to adopt them, but to lay them before Council for their information to guide them in their determinations, which was not done. Neither was his confidence in the judgment of his advisers any ground for him to undertake a work without approval of Council, or to justify him in using funds voted for specified purposes, until he had shown that a balance would be left, and had obtained a vote for such other specific purpose. Thirdly, if he had any opinions from professional men, that he should extend the work, it does not appear in his engineer's report, who sanctions the work (if to be undertaken this year at all) only to low water, and not beyond, till the railway to Drury was complete for convenience, whereof only could it be useful viz:-- to discharge goods, to be forwarded by rail. The pretended advantages thereof could not for one moment be put in comparison with the making a wet dock immediately connected with the railway
[Image of page 22]
as before proposed by Mr. Simpson. Neither would any opinions right or wrong, of his private advisers or his Executive Council, warrant him taking steps to begin a work which would embrace a long period and the necessity of a large loan, which it is doubtful if it could be raised on the endowments under present liabilities and unproductive condition.
Nor do I think any Council would promote votes under guarantee of revenue for works of a limited and temporary character, under present debts, until the endowments were handled in a manner to produce revenue, and the works themselves part and parcel promoting the ultimate accommodation requisite to make this an available free warehousing port, towards which any open quay would be very limited and insufficient.
I was disposed to extend much further my observations on other harbours, but it would take too much time and cost; especially where we see the mercantile community so indifferent on the question of improvements.
WM. POWDITCH.
