Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-03-15


Same, Pier 4, 1888.
/ Havana. Cuba, Pier No. ., supported
on reinforced concrete piles: deck
live load $50 lbs. per So. IT,, 1885.
San Francisco. Cal, Pier 2s, eyiin-
ders spaced 15'x16' &C, $32o.
Same, Pier %, S3.l6.
Same. Piers 80. and 80, $3.50.
Same. Pier 80. S357.
While the piles proposed to be used
by Mr.. Forbes may be shorter than
those used at Havana, or more cheap
ly placed than the cylinders used at
other places, II is to be remembered
that the structures above mentioned
were built when the prices of rein
forced concrete materials we're low.
compared with those current at the
/ present time. ~
We are also of the opinion that the
plan suggested by Mr. Forbes pre-
( seRts grave possibilities from the pub.
lie health viewpoint. A large empty
space of about one acre in area. en-.
closed on top. bottom and sides by
concrete and earth, dark and incon-
yenient of access to human beings,
would afford an ideal refuge for rats,
which are becoming more and more
widely recognized as carriers OF di-
sease. We find statement in The
Survey" for February "a, 1917, p. 500,
as follows: ..>~
"A bill has been presented TO the
Massachusetts legislature requiring
that all new buildings along the wa
terfront of Boston be made rat-proof
as we'll as fireproof This bill is the
result of an eadeavor to rid the city
OF its annual expense Of 1885, 900 for
the support Of rats, which, as was
suggested last summer. might carry
infection of poliomyelitis,' and have
been proved to carry infection of bu-
bonic plague" II
II is hardly necessary for. US to dwell
further on this phase of the matter.
We have no desire, either as COM
mittee or as individuals, to enter into
controversy with Charles r. Forbes
over this matter. It is evident that
the manner in which Mr.. Forbes ap.
proaches project okthe magnitude of
the one under discussion is SO radical
~ different from any method which
any one of US would pursue, that it is
committee or as individuals, could ar
rive at any common basis with him,
from which we might proceed to a
consideration Of the main features OF
the plan. In our previous report on
the work on piers s, 8 and 10 we earn
estly endeavored to offer constructive
criticism, and We carefully avoided
anything which might be considered
as a direct criticism of Mr.. Forbes.
The way in which he attacked our re-
port on the evening Of March was
so hostile and antagonistic that we
have no reason TO suppose that any
other report from us, which does not
support his contentious, would be re-
ceived by him in an unprecedented
spirit.
We doubt whether Mr.. Forbes is
capable of calmly and dispassionately |
weighing in his mind the merits of two
schemes, one his own, and the other |
originating with some one else. The |
plan proposed now by Mr.. Forbes is |
ayowedly his own plan, developed and
presented by him, and for which he
accepts the responsibility. Under these
circumstances We decline to enter into
any controversy in which we should
peratiYe verbal attacks which unfort-
unately seem to be characteristic OF
Mr.. Forbes conduct toward those with
whom he does not agree.
His assumption as to weight of sub
fill we consider ill-advised. In /
an article in the Engineering News OF
May Is, 1905, page Sill, vol, SO, on
"Pier and Bulkhead. Construction in
New York Harbor," by j. A. Bensel,
chief engineer, department docks and
ferries. New York city, past president
A. S. C. E., and ID. c. .Serber, consult
ing civil engineer Of New York, the
assumptions are given as
the result of their experience:
Weight of riprap in air, 107 lbs, per
cubic foot.
Weight of riprap submerged, 20 lbs.
per cubic foot.
Earth filling in air, ITO lbs. per
cubic foot.
Earth filling submerged, &C lbs. per
cubic foot.
'Surcharge live load, 1000 lbs. per
cubic foot of surface
Mr.. Forbes has assumed that sub
merged earth weighs only 80 lbs per
cubic foot Our investigation caused
rs TO use IS lbs. per cubic foot for
his type of fill.
As citizens, property owners and
taxpayers of this territory, we feel
that it is right and due to the public
hat we should state that it is our !
firm conviction. based on our examin-
alton Of the plans and Specifications
Of Piers s, 9 and 10, which were pre- ;
pared under Mr.. Forbes direction and
which received his approval; also on
his sketch and estimate of his pro-
POSED "deck-slab anchorage scheme;
llso on his statements regarding the
'eason for approving the design of and
contracting for an anchorage which
lis own statements lead US to believe 1
lie did not intend to allow to be built;
Llso on the fact that he permitted, or
It least did not prevent, the excava,
ion of a COMPACT and massive en- ,
,ankment on the outer face of the
,.~n- e 1;ar- Q 81 kIoNl