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

SAINT EIct =, 1000. s..
| Havana, Cuba, Pier No. 2, supported
on reinforced concrete piles: decl
live load $50 lbs. per SO. IT,, 1896.
San Francisco, Cal. Pier 2s. cylin
ders spaced 1916 &C, 1920.
Same. Pier &c. $3.I6.
Same, Piers 80 and 80, $2.52..
Same. Pier 80. &3.57.
4 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 al
other places, ii is to be remembered
that the structures above mentioned
were built when the prices OF rein.
forced concrete materials were low,
compared with those current at the
present time.
We are also Of the opinion that the
plan suggested by Mr.. Forbes pre-
sents 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 frcon-
yenient Of access to human beings,
would afford an ideal refuge for rats,
which are becoming more and more
widely recognized as carriers of d.
sease. We find statement in The
Survey" for February "a, 1917, p. sos,
as follows: -. sSs
"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 eldeavor to rid the city
Of its annual expense OF 81 ,355, 600 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."sfs
1t 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
a controversy with Charles r. Forbes
over this matter. 1t is evident that
the manner in which Mr.. Forbes ap..
proaches project OF The magnitude of
the one under discussion Is so radical
~ different from any method which
any one Of us would pursue, that il is
highly improbable that we, either as a
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, 9 and 10 we earn
estly endeayoTed to offer constructive
criticism, and we carefully avoided
anything which might be considered
as direct criticism of Mr.. Forbes.
The way in which he attacked our re-
port on the evening Of March 6 was
so hostile and ante gonistic 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
capsule OF calmly and dispassionately
weighing In his mind the merits of twoI
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 |
by him. and for which he
accepts the responsibility. Under these
We decline to enter into
any controversy in which we should |
renier ourselves liable to the yitu-
perative 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.
merged 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. IS. G. E., and d. C. Serber, consult
ing civil engineer Of New York, the
following assumptions are given as
he result of their experience:
weight of riprap in air, 107 lbs. per
cubic foot.
Weight Of riprap submerged. 20 lbs.
,er cubic foot. ii
Earth filling In air, ITO lbs. per-
,ubic foot
) Earth filling submerged. Sc lbs. perl
cubic foot.
-Snrcharge Tive load, 1000 lbs. per
.ubic foot Of surface" f.
Mr.. Forbes has assumed that sub
merged earth weighs only IS lbs per
'ubic foot. Our investigation caused
IS to use IS lbs. per cubic foot for
his type Of fill. L
As citizens, property owners and
axpayers Of this territory, we feel
hat 1t is right. and due to the public
hat we should state that it Is our |
irm conviction, based on our examin-
tion Of the plans and specifications
4 Piers s, and 10, which were pre- {
AIRED under Mr.. Forbes direction and
which received his approval: also on
is sketch and estimate of his pro-
osed "deckslab anchorage" scheme:
lso on his statements regarding the
eason for approving the design of and
for an anchorage which
is own statements lead us to believe /
Q did not intend to allow to be built;
iso on the fact that he permitted, or
least did not prevent, the excayar
lon Of a cor1pact and massive en-
ankmept on the outer face of the
uIkhead walls OF piers 8 and 9 that
ormed a natural bulwark Of strength !
or the support Of these walls; also on
he fact that he permitted, or at least