The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1910-09-09
REPORT ON HIL0
WHARF SUBJECT
CONTINUED from page nve)


ton Of superstructure would delay the
construction of completed breakwater
and consequently postpone the date at
which the harbor would be protected
incidentally there was the fact that
the prohibition of the building of any
superstructure and the use OF derrick
over the end of the breakwater would
be unfair TO the present contractor,
Mr.. Metzger, I'm that It would prevent
him from using a considerable portion
of his plant, handicap him i'm bidding on
contract number two, and prevent as
low bid as he might be able to bid
if he make use of his entire plant I'M
der existing methods
Upon the foregoing statement of
facts and reasons given in support of
the respective propositions submitted,
your committee are of opinion:
That the primary object of both
Major Winslow and the Hilo Board of
Trade is the same, viz: The securing
of the completion of the breakwater
at the earliest possible date The only
difference between them is in the me-
thod of procedure to secure this COM
mon object.
If the new appropriation were to be
the last one made by Congress for the
purpose, or if there were any reason
able doubt that continuous appropria-
tons would hereafter be made by Con-
gress for the breakwater, the proce-
dure advocated by the Hilo Board of
Trade would be sound, for there would
at the end of contract Number Two, be
100000 worth of additional completed
breakwater; whereas under the meth
cd proposed by Major Winslow a large
proportion of such appropriation will
have been expended in the construc-
ton of substructure only, which, until
the superstructure is built thereon,
will add little or none to the protection
of the harbor.
If, however, the increase in plant
available with which to build the
breakwater is secured under the pro-
posed scow dumping method, and APP
preparations commensurate with the
capacity of the double plant which will
then be available, can be secured, Ma
ior Winslow's method would be pre-
ferable as securing the completion of
| the breakwater in half the time that
would be required if the use of the
derrick dumping method at the end of
the breakwater alone is pursued.
What method of procedure it is sound
prospect of securing continuous and
increased appropriations from Con-
gress. Upon this point your commit
tee are of opinion that every indica-
ton is that large and increased ap-
preparations can be expected. The
reasons for our belief in this respect
are as follows
(a) Congress, at it's session of
1867, approved of the entire project
for the construction Of a breakwateT
involving an expenditure of approXi-
mately $1,7O0,OOO;
! (b) Three successive sessions of con.
gress since then have ratified that the
on the general plan approved by the
first Congress, and have made appro
priations therefor; and this after a
personal examination on two different
occasions by a number of members
of the Rivers and Harbors Committee
of the House, including the present
chairman of the Rivers and Harbors
Committee, Mr. Alexander, of New
York;
(c) The last river and harbor bill
was constructed on the piece-mea
plan, of number of comparatively
small appropriations spread over Z
very large number of projects.
This plan was denounced by Presi
dent Taft in a message to Congress il
connection with his signing of the bill
in which he stated that he had though
of vetoing it by reason of this feature
He urged that a smaller number o
projects be carried on Simultaneous!
and that larger appropriations b.
made continuous and thereby results
secured more rapidly and economical
ly.
Interviews have been given out b!
the chairmen of the two committees
of the two houses and by the chair
man of the appropriations COMMITTEES
in the House, supporting the views o
the President in this connection;
cd The Rivers and Harbors Com
mittee made the declaration at thu
last session of Congress that they pro
posed an annual Rf,er and harGor bill
instead of biennial bill, as mas beer
the custom for some years past, an,