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

tHe CTeuIls anu ue udu some ODlec-
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 Il and tore il In two
pieces and destroyed it.
He was mad. good and mad.
Later plans were then drawn under
CampbeHs Supervision. The drafter.
having been Informed that rough
weather sometimes prevailed at Ma
hukona, consulted his superior in
oiifce, and was tod that was never
the case and that the sea was always
as calm as q mill pond =
The new plans called for an extern
sion OF the old wharf ZOE feet, the
ship side 70 be Of reinforced concrete
by the sea, or nfal<ai side, to be q
rock Ill. This makai WALL, says
the report was not Of concrete con-
struction as called for IN the law ap-
propriating money to construct the
wharf, and in planning wall Of that
character the plain directions and IN
tent Of the law was ignored and con-
sitlefed of no importance. On Mar
stoi Can1pbelfs recommendation
these plans were accepted BY the har-
Dor commission
Early last July the mill pond be.
came strangely agitated, as shown
BY the supeffnt recommends
ton that the contractors extension OF
time be granted sixty days, since the
contract could not be completed by
July 81 owing 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 change In. the
plans, made by A. @. Wheeler OF the
department after a careful ifvestiga-
ton on the ground; by Manager
Elgin OF the Hawaii Railway Com
pany, by Mr.. Wilson, the contractor.
and the Kohala Civic League, which
protested against the construction,
subsequently wireless was sent to
Wilson, instructing him to proceed
with the original plans"
The report also criticises Campbell
at this point for failure to obtain the
opinion of the encouragement con-
corning the legality OF paying an IN
spector at the Hanalei wharf project
out of the appropriation. for mainten-
alce, ETC., Of wharves on Kauai, but
went ahead and paid Mr.. Evans sum
exceeding $500 for INSPECTING the Ha-
nalei wharf, out OF the maintenance
fund.
Later, referring to this matter Of
inspection. the report says, regarding
the Hanalei wharf and Inspector
Evans:
Mr.. SanboFn, who had had expert
ence, offered to inspect all the work,
save. the pouring Of concrete for the
piles, without any compensation, but
this offer was turned down by Mr..
Campbell. Money could have been
saved If this offer had been accept
ed, since from the testimony of the
people in Hanalei, Evans spent only
about two hours day inspecting the
work, and the rest of the day he spent
in sleep at the hotel, at least q
third of mile from the work.
The wharf is well constructed and
a credit to- Mahikoa,D who was the
contractor, but 1t is too low to be
of any use save as mentioned before
in this report with reference to fish
ing parties.
According to evidence given BY
residents at Hanalei, the wharf dur
ing a high tide is wet from end to
end, and no freight can be handled
or left ON the wharf without being
ruined or damaged by the salt water.
The wharf as constructed cannot be
raised two additional feet without en-
ormous cost, and the sacrificing Of its
stability.
Conclusion.
From the foregoing, ii will be
seen that public money was expended
on the Mahukona wharf, Hanalei
wharf and Alewa reservoir, without
proper plans and specifications being
prepared, the responsibility for which
is not on those who drafted them in
the first instance, but upon that per-
son whose duty 1t was to approve the
same after careful and thorough ex-I
animation Of all the details.