Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-04-18

tons against this plan and he was
kind of aroused that Mr. Southworth
did not consult with him more in de-
tail about the construction of this
wharf. and one day when he came In
he saw the tracing lying on the table.
and he took it and tore it in two
pieces and destroyed it.
He was mad, good and mad.
Later plans were then drawn under
Campbell's supervision. The drafter.
having been informed that rough
weather sometimes prevailed at Ma
hukona, consulted mis- superior in
office, and was told that was never
the case and that the sea was always
as calm as a mill pond.
The new plans called for an extern
sion of the old wharf 100 feet, the
slip side TO be of reinforced concrete
by the sea, or makai side, to be a
rock ill. This makai wall says
the report, was not of concrete con-
strnetion as called for in the law APP
propriating money to. construct the
wharf, and in planning a wall Of that
character the plain directions and in
tent of the law was ignored and con.
sidered of no Importance. On Mar.
ston Campbelrs recommendations
these plans were accepted by the har-
Dor commission.
Early last July the mill pond" be,
came strangely agitated. as shown
by the superintendent recommended
ton that the contractors extension OF
time be granted sixty days. since the
contract could not be completed by
July 81 lowing to delay on the work
owing to heavy seas.
Despite the fact that at this time q
portion of the work already done was
washed out by the heavy, seas, and
the suggestions of a change in the
plans, made by A, c. Wheeler OF the
department after a careful inyestiga.
ton on the ground; by Manager
Elgfn of the Hawaii Railway Com
pany, by MIR. Wilson, the contractor
and the Kohala Civic League, which
protested against the construction
subsequently a wireless was sent IL
Wilson, instructing him to proceed
with the original plans"
The report also criticises Campbell
at this point for failure to obtain thu
opinion of the attorney-generaII con
corning the legality of paying an In
spector at the Hanalei wharf projec
out of the appropriation for mainten
anee, ETC., of wharves on Kauai, bu
went ahead and paid Mr.. Evans sun
exceeding $400 for inspecting the Ha
nalei wharf, out of the maintenance
fund.
Later, referring to this matter o
inspection. the report says, regardin,
the Hanalei wharf and Inspecto
Evans:
Mr. SSanborn, who had had expert
ence, offered to inspect all the work
save th6 pouring of concrete for tn,
| piles, without any compensation, bu
this offef was turned down by Nj
CampbellA Money could have beef
| saved if this offer had been accept
ed, since fSom the testimony of tn
people in Hanalei, Evans spent onl
about two hours a day inspecting tn
work, and the nest of the day he spen
/ in sleep at Il e hotel, at least
third of mile from the work.
The wharf ID yell constructed an
a credit to Mahil Ioa," who was tn
contractor, but is too low to b
of any use save as mentioned befor
in this report with reference to fisf
| ing parties.
According to eyid, ence given b
residents at Hanalei, 1.-THE wharf dul
| ing high tide is wet from end t
end, and no freight ca p be handle
or left on the wharf without bein
ruined or damaged by I'd e salt water
The wharf as construete 10 cannot b
raised two additional feet without en-
ormous cost, and the sacr icing of it
stability.
Conclusion.
From the foregoing, it will b.
seen that public money was %zpende'
| on the Mahukona wharf, Hanale
wharf and Alewa reservoir, Wtnou
proper plans and specifications Reinl
prepared, the responsibility for WIG
is not on those who drafted th en- 4
the first instance, but upon tina PEI
son whose duty it was to approyt "a
same after careful and thoroughly ex
| animation of all tho details