Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-03-07


submit all their data immediately.
The board members set silent for n
tense moment or two and then Com.
missioners Wakefield and Mcclellan
smoothed over the situation by saying
they were sure the disposition OF the
engineers is TO give the board every
assistance, and no motion was neces.
sary.
Il want it passed" declared Forbes
with heat. 1T Is not you who are
under fire-it Is me. | am getting all
the blame and want an opportunity
OF checking over all these figures"
Later Commissioner Wakefield pass
ed motion which, in effect, carries
out Forbes demand. though carefully
and courteously worded II was
unanimously passed.
Forbes New Plan Proposed
Early in the session Forbes pro-
posed his alternative plan which, In
erief. Is to extend a concrete slab"
or floor from the wharf landward to
solid ground This plan. he holds, will
give a reinforced deck to carry the
| working loads OF the wharf proper.
plus the superstructure loads, and at
the same time w.ll act as an anchor
age In this connection II Is to be
remembered that the investigating en-
gineers dweh largely on the necessity
for the anchorage" or plans for max
ing the Pier 3 wall stable, after the
discovery of the fiye-inch bulge" In
some portions.
Under this new plan. the contract
or win do no more filling behind the
/ Pier wall. Piles win be driven there
i to carry the new reinforced deck" or
] concrete flooring.
| Discussing this alternative plan,
{ Forbes forced some OF the liyeliest
/ incidents Of an evening full OF tense
moments. He pointed his remarks
particularly at Gere and Armitage. He
apparently considered that Engineer
Andrews had furnished the board with
more satisfactory and complete data
| than either Of the other two.
Engineers Stand BY Gums .e-.---.'
For their part, tie engineers Came
back without hesitation whenever
criticism was leyeled their way. Once
Gere said in direct, unlmpassioned,
| but unmistakable way:
stick to facts, Mr.. Forbes.
When he proposed his alternative
plan he called the engineers TO the
table and demanded that they pass on
| the merits of his plan.
! After some scrutiny, Gere said:
"Offhand and as personal opinion,
! should say this Is better than either
| of the other two. | should also say It
! is far more expensive"
I'VE are prepared to show Il isn't.
Forbes retorted. 80
/ Good, But Expensive"
! Armitage said about what Gere had
: said, and Andrews added:
"The plan is undoubtedly good, but
| Il seems to me the cost would be ex-
cessiyer He also added: We con-
sidered 4 similar plan early in the
game, but discarded It because we be.
/ lieved the cost would be prohibitivel
The matter Of cost data brought up
some Of the liveliest interchanges OF
the evening. Forbes In written
statement questioned the figures Gere
had submitted in the estimates Of the
/ Gere plan.
Apparently all of the investigating
engineers took emphatic issue with
Forbes on these points. They pointed
out what were declared to be errors IN
his own caIculations. end 50 did mem
bers Of the board particularly Com
missioner Wakefield. To each such
| charge Forbes answered that he
| stands by his figures.
At one point Gere said he would
furnish his own data to IAN engin-
eer from this department but not to
any office boy sent down.
Forbes replied that he considered
Ceres data SO far shown entirely in
adequate and that IL should never
have been passed to the board IN the
| meager form il was.
| Oil on Troubled Waters
Members of the board stood by the
I.engineers on numerous occasions, and
when threatened storms arose, poured
oil on the troubled waters and got over
each minor clinsx OF tensity.
| Forbes Plan in Detail
Superintendent Forbes statement to
the board last night contains much
I technical discussion which Is confus-
ing to a Iaymau, particularly without
reference sketches or biueprints. A
| large part Of IL was taken up with
/ figures to bear out various theories.
ne pOItlOIlS WHICH STATE nlo 6eAACLa-
attitude on the engineering boards
reports as well as his own alternative
scheme are as follows:
There are several points about the
recommendation OF the board Of engf
neers which should be considered.
| "(a) Where anchors are directly
/ below the superstructure columns.
double piling and caps will be required
to carry the load
"fb) Wooden piles as called for Oh
both submitted schemes are unsatis-
factory as their tops are above the
water line and subject 70 decay, after
which the anchors would become frae-
tured and the strength q the steel be,
come impaired
j -tcl The beams as designed Dy the
! board of engineers would be subject
to failure due to forces exerted by the
4