IMAGE EVALUATION EST TARGET (MT«3) I /. / V % .A* C/. 1.0 I.I 1.25 |J0 '""^= 2,5 2.2 ,r 1^ ^ I 8- IIIM 14 111111.6 Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WECSTER,N.Y. HS80 (716) 872-4503 ^\ 4^ -^<^ a^ "b^ 'ither with A. H. Verret, Secretary, and Mr. Boswell, Eng*inee)' in charg-e of the works. The Government, Engineer, Mr. Perley, of Ottawa, and the City Engineer, Chas. Baillairge, Es'j., W'To also present, as well as the following delegates froft the Board of Trade : —Joseph Shehyu, Esq., M. P. P., President, a.id Me.ssrs. P. Valliere, li. Turner, Owen Murphy, B. Verret, ^^imon Peters aud P. H. Andrews, Secretary. Mr, Gourd^au. Harbor Master, and others. — 2 — Till) acting chairinau, Mr Forsyth, arosi^ and said : Mr Mayor and gcMitlerrien, I regret to inform you that our chairman is not here to-day and my friends of the Harbour Commission have asked me to preside. I do not think it necessary for me to say much on this occa- sion. You know there were three phms submitted to the Har- bour Commissioners for the proposed works. We adopted one of them and after considerabh' discussion advertised for ten- ders. Our chairman, Mr Dobell, and others mentioned to us that there were certain objections raised by citizens of Quebm". I think all our interests are identical and w*' ail wish to work for the good of our port, hence the arranging for this confe- rence to-day between the Mayor. Aldermen and Councillors, the president of the Board of Trade and Council and the Har- bour Commissioners. I do not consider it necessary for me to say anything more just now but to hear w,hatever objtM- tions may be raised to the present plan, also Mr l^Jeys views and explanations on those plans which he has submitted to us and which we have adopted. His Worship Mayor Langelier : We are all vol^y thankful to the Commissioners for the invitation to meijt/tliem and discuss a subject like that of improvements in the Harbour of Quebec. We are all agrc -d upon one point, ^d that is that the improvements ii^ vv being executed mus^be jsuch as to accommodate the shipping now coming to the £jt Lawrence or which may be expected to arrive in this riverat BO distant period. The tendency at the present age is to build vciryliarge steamers. 8ome years ago the neccvssity of this was qiiesstldifiitble We have seen here a very large steamer the " Great Busterri " and at that time it was thought a great piece of exttavagance to build such vessels, but subsequent i' vents sitow t)i4t that idea r Mayor an is not oil have lis occa- thf Har- [)t('(l one for tcn- us that ui'bi'c. 1 to work > coiii'*'- ucillors, hi" Ilar- for mi' r obj fe- z's views itted to hiiukful ^m and rbour of that is such as iwrence i distant teamcrs, h. We rn " and anee to hat idea — 3 — IS now being taken up by the trade. There is at present running b.;t\veen Liverpool and New- York a steain-r n -arly as long as the Great Eastern, the " City of Home" and nobody pretendts that she is the extreme limit for th(! size and tonnage of steamers. Th,' Harbour Works here must thi>refore be sueh as to accommodate steamers of the largi'st size, and I have already insisted on that point in the House of Commons two year.s ago When it was proposed to give a new contract ibr the mail service I opposed the same because as I said it would kill the St-Lawrence route taking as u basis of speed and siz(^ such vessels as the "Sardinian" for in.stan.'e. All those who have been accustomed to superior steamers would leave this route aiul go by New- York as they are in fact doing now. If these works eould'not accommodate the steamers which we-must exptict to come here in a short time, they would be worse than u.seless.If we were to say " here is the extreme limit and capacity of our Harbour " it would be advertising abroad that we could not alford accommodation lo the large steamers now being built, and the consequence would be practicallyidosing the St. Law- rence route to passenger and other trafhc. Those works must be sulFicient to accommodate the largest ship that may be built. I think the idea in the public mind seems to be shared by the gentlemen of the Harbour Commission, judging from the h'tter vvhicji they have caused their Secretary to write to the Queb.-c Board of Tradi'. I find in the conclu- sion of that letter the following words : "In conclusion, I am directed to state that after its completion the Wet Dock will b,' able to re -eive vess.ds drawing 28 feet. '" This is stating iu .^o many words that the Harbour Commissioners themselves adiuit the necessity of having a Wet Dock in which ships drawing 28 feet of water <'an be accommodated. Some doubt has been raised as to whether the work s con- — 4 - t™,i,lat,.,l those «,.cut„d and «.„.„. i„ ,.„„t„„,pl„iio„ ,,, „f ., -J. actor to accommodate shi,. drawi,,,- 28 ,■.',.; or4 t . will at once endeavour to lay these douhts before the n-,., ,,,. me , re|,re„ent,..g the Harbour Hoard here to day I met t ' that u. the plans which have b,...n „re,>,red ul'.r \ ' inteudcnceoi-MrPerley.theentrart^l' v''k'ki:r: ■■..ou,h to provide for ships of the description already m .no ncJ. he entran.v ac^ordin,. to Mr. l!oy,l will l,.ave 30 "L t in the S.11 wuh a 12 feet (i,le, and 28 feet with a 10 feet t M . t as Mr lioyd remarks, the 10 feet tide is a thin, of V y " ' thing ol unfrccjuent oc,-„rr,.nc.., the depth of water on 'h, si would be 30 fee, which is plenty, I unde'rstaud. to acci , d ^^h,ps draw,.,. 28 feet of wat,.. Is the rest of the dod tt pa !f r ^Trn7!r" """"'""* '^'■'* '"SO •'"-'fh a,,; s,!,h ,i ; °' •" ""'•'"'"ymmd it is useless to have y as d,™ " r""'- " ""' "■^' "'■""■ ""''' '» -' l-oportionat" y as deep and we may ot once give up theidea of expectiu. Theletterbeforomontioned is not very clear. It sav« tint nf drawing 28 eet. This is not altogether satisfactory and is open o two constructions. One construction which mi^ht be sa s aetory to us allis this that the wholespace of ti: dock e^ he lUed up with vessels drawing 28 feet of water. liut the i se itenoe is open to another constrnction, whi..h is that only one or I wo vessels drawing 28 feet of water could be ac.om ' moda cd, This laUer would be quiS. unsatisfactory. ZZ- ing, for instance that only one or two ships could be a.xom- .nodated alongsule the cross-wall. I undc-stand it is deer, ongs,de th.. new cross-wall tha,i at th.. Louise Embankment -d I am ,„lormc.d that no mor,. than two large steamers latioa ar(> of a t of water. J •0 tlu' gciitlc- I mast say T tli(> super- Dock is deej[) vady iiieiitio- ive 30 feet in eet tide, and, )f very rare paratively a -'r on the sill tccomniodate ' dock now 1 hare been throug-h any 'less to have •oportionate- of expecting I we antici- ays that af- !eive vessels and is open ?ht be satis- tie dock can ter. But the s that ojily I be accom- y. Suppo- 1 be acconi- it is deeper ibaiikment e stt'aniers van be moored alongside the new eross-wall. If that is the meaning ot the sentence I am commenting on, I do not think this will satisfy the public mind to have a wet dock that will not accommodate more than two ships drawing 28 feet of water in any portion of it. The sentence seems to have that meaning if we (ompare the h'tter in question with the report of Mr Uoyd w^hich is appended to it and which I have here. According to Ihal report, there are only from ten to eleven feet of water along- side the Louise Embankment, which, with a 12 feet rise of the tide would give only 22 fe.it. I think all the cal- culations should be based on that tide as we ought not to make our calculations on the highest tide that occurs. If we take a 12 feet tide as a basis, this would give, as I said before only 22 feet alongside that immense wall which is now constructed. I think every one must admit that 22 feet is entirely too little to accommodate the present shipping or the shipping which we expect to receive in that dock. They have now a channel between Que- bec and Montreal for ships drawing 25 feet of water. We were some time ago invited to come down in the steamship Peruvian, when ih..aus were taken to show that there was that depth of water there, and as every one knows, the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal are taking steps to have the channel from Quebec to Montreal able to let ships go up drawing 27| feet of water. If w^e cannot accommodati' ships of this draught vvheii they '•an get it in Montreal, we might as well close up those works at once, as the ships will certainly not stop at Quebec, but go on to Montreal. I think it would be a waste of money m,.i. „ b„ , ' ""*,""',^ ^*'°^'« '■•^■•'•■.t,.d wlu.h it ca„..d .e .r;.;:;": . ri '':;^T''r"""■'''-'^^'■'■'■'• pnlatioii ofQ„el,e,.ai,d Levi, .,„d i, ■ ! "''"'" P"" ''■mplated to o.-.-at ' , "'°'''' "''"''' '* i" ^'On- 'l-"glUofwat,.;tha;;oTL;:"' ''•'■'"-'«"■ «Wl« or ,„or,. the wall iu qne.tio , I ',„ ,1 f"" ™" ,''^' ""'^ "" ^30 foot fiom the wharf \y.. ,„^., ,J"V '"■''"'"''''■''* f^'"* f"™ 2.^. foot of watoroo foot froL"!,! „L,':;."'' '" ' —'■'tio,.. j my r Meat I iinpr wo 22 or iut,.,l out v.-ry rl.arly hv ilu' Mayor. j j Th.so plans ori.ri„m,a ,„ y,,,,,, ,„_,^ _.^„,j ^^j^^^^ ^.^^^^^ ^^^ .nayhwyoha.l in our u.i.uls. th.n hav. I>,vu vvry murh .•han^..Ml smr... ThPr. has b...., a .vrtain amount of ..orr.s- l.on.l.n.v ..x-hanir,,! 1> tw.HMi the Hoanl olTra.l.. and Harbour Conunission on this subjoot. In th. .ours, of th. rorn spon- '^;.rr/'ru"^ ','''* ^'''' '■'■"'^ ""' 'I'^'-'-^i'-^'o'mrJssion dat.d lath Dec. 18 0. Ii the lirst ,Iaus,. they .say: " There bein.r •' IH lert or water below low-water mark (zero) above the "sill of the entrance irate into the Wet Dock, the cross-wull " Itself has ( onsequently been Dustraeted toaecommodatethe " largest steamers both inside and outside. " Mr. eih.'hyii here, put the tollowin- questions to Mr IVrley the (lovernment J^'ng-inoor. Qu.>stion.-What is the depth of water at low-water murk aloncr,side the wall of the cross-wall within the Wet Dock to the bottom of the sand ? Mil Perley. Answer .-If I had Mr Boswoll here with the plans, ho ^ould g^ive that. Mr Boswell entered an.l in reply to Mr Perley answered to the above qucstioji : Fifteen IWi. Question -What is the depth of water at low water mark alongside this wall within the Wet Dock provided for in the design and construction of this work ? Mr Perley Answer.— Fifteen feet. tion Ai wert Qi sion [ •' to " of " a ( ■' wo " noi " of " wo Co 15 fe with A> Qua J emba wall and 1 for a foun( close To piliu< nencj uencj Qu — 9 — '<'t from tllc Ifiir- I r\ l- -nr. Nvry .Irurly |,y ^. ^^ "■~^^"" '^'''*" ^^'' '"^^^ ''^^ ^'»'« ^^'^1' «""1^ '» Posi- viiiit vifvvs vv vii v,'ry much iioiiiit orcorrt's- (I " There bciufr tTo) above the the cross-wall 'commodate the jstions to Mr. IV- water mark e Wet Dock to here with the I'ley answered e I Answer.— In the latter part ol' the summer of 1884 they were sunk— three of th( m. ; Qu<'stion.— Tn the second part of the letter, of the Commis- sioner's above referred to, they say : " If it become desirable •'todredjre to the depth of ir> ieet, the whole of the Im.' "of the Quay wall, AVet-Dock, (his can be done by driving? '• a close pilin ;• alonirside the presi-nt wall. This work " would not b ' "xpcnsive. and would enabbi the Commissio- " ne.s to d: du^i! that portion of the Dock to a uniform depth "ofl5f,M«t. The whole Quay wall .,o piled and dredged " would give accommodation to th«^ larsrist vessels. " Could this close piling alongside the Quay wall to provide 15 feet of water at low water mark alongside it, be made without risk to the stability and pi'rmanency of the structure ? Answer.— There are two points in that question. By the Quay wall, I presume you mean that portion of the Louise embankm(>nt in contra-distinctioii to the cross-wall. That wall was built according to plans preparc^d some 10 years ago, and that work has been built and finished, and I think oiUy for a depth of 10 feet at low water. It is built on a sand foundation. To rcnluce the depth below 15 feet without close piling would render that wall unsafe aud unstable. To the second part of the question, I say that, that close ' water mark I ^^^^^"° '''^*" ^^ ^^°"*' without risking the stability or perma- h'd (or in th.- \ nency of the structure, because it would add to its perma- nency and stability. Question.— What would be the cost of this pile work ? — 10 — Mr Perley ANSWER.-From 10 to $12 a rimninn- foot — $22,500 c: |25,000. Question.— Will the piles go down b.'low the fouiulMtion of the crib work ? Answer.— Oh yes, very far,— perhaps 10, 12, 15 f. et. QuEsTlON.~If so, will there not be danovr of the sand b'liig wash.'d out from under the foundation of the Quav wall ? ^ Answer.— No, because I would not take out a bit of sand in front of it, not within 40 or 50 feet from the piles. If that sand was taken out, we would have to put clay in its pla.e If you took that out you would have a pressure against those piles and a chance of spewing as it were from the Wright of the Embankment forcing the piles out. The foun- dations do not go down so deep as to permit dredo-iuo- us close as that. '^ ° Question.— You would be able to dredge .'los. up, to the piling ? Answer.— I would not dredge within 4u to 50 feet of it. QUESTION.-Is it the decision of the Commissioners to so pi- le drive the Quay Wall and to dredge the Wet Dock to a uni- form depth of 15 feet at once, or to allow thi.s to stand over to a future period ? M. Forsyth. Answer-That has not been discussed-the sub- ject has not been taken up yet. Question.-So this is merely a supposition that if it is required it could be done ? It is not <>ontemplated at present? Ans' I accord! ih«» Ore I'verytl — 11 — iniiing foot,— K' found.'ition 15 f. i-t. of tht' sand of the Quay I bit of sand )il('s. If that in its place, sure ag-aiust ere from the t. The foun- dredgiug as ■ up, to the feet of it. ncrs to so pi- 3('k to a uni- tand over to ed — thesub- hal if it is at present? Answer.— It has been spoke.-, of and diseiissod but there has been no Mct in providing 18 feet at low water mark above the sill of the entrance gate into the Wet Dock y Answer —It was to provide for th*^ future, for the exnan- sion of trade, and inereas'^n size of vessels. It was thought wise to put it in at 18 feet because with 12 feet tide that gives 80 feet which is greater than any V(>ssels require coming here ; and on<;e there it is ther(^ for ev(>r. The entrance works once in th-y never could be altered. That was thought ad- visable and desirable and that matter was brought to the Commissioners' notice, and for that reason th'> entrance works Were pxit in. QuKSTiOiV.— Was it with the intention of n-iving the same uniform depth within the Wet Dock ? Answer— No. The lirst depth was 10 feet at low water according to the original plans by Knipple and Morris. Before the Cross Wall was commenced thi' matter was discussed and ''verything was taken to 15 feet owing to <'hangi! of circums- 1 — 12 — tan<..>«, giving 27 foot draught, which was about oquivalont to the draught that will be had between here Jd Montreal - that IS the least draught between her,-, and Montreal after the cOj.uin.1 IS completed. I may say the upper s^de oi the Cross Wall, both sides, were put in for a depth of 18 fee^ below (zero). All that was done with the view of the future" Question.-Then it is not the intention of the Harbour Commission to dredge inside that Basin to 18 feet of water but to 15 feet only ? ' Mr. FoiiSYTH.-There is no decision com,> to. Mr. PER.EY.-There is a certain strip of a certain width ot the Basin that has been dredged by Peters, Moore and Wright all along the whole length of the Quay Wall That was a dredge of iO feet. It was intended to put that portion only to lb feet. Question-In providing for this depth of water over the sill of the entrance gate, what was the object in view since the same depth cannot be given alongside the Quay Wall ? Answer.-The reason was that it would give the same depth alongside the Cross Wall. The presumption was that vessels of a very large size would not occupy the Dock at the same tim , while the other portion of the Dock could accommodate the vessels of a smaller size. Qu. Il^et ? i Anj fti '84 Que plans, less w for th( am no Mr. was V the bo Que Comm I Docl would he rect time ? Ans' accomi wall. Question.-Do not the original plans provide for 15 feet at low water mark above the sill of the entrance gate ? Mr. Perley.-I never saw any details. I do not know that I ever saw the original plans at all. The cross wall plans are designed entirely by us. I do not think I ever looked at Knipple and Morris' plans. I Quel Ans^ Ques Ans^ Ques wall fo 13 — 'Ut pqiiivalont to t' and Montreal J and Montreal le upper side oi' li'pth of 18 feet w of the future. 3f the Harbour feet of water, certain width ers, Moore and T Wall. That t that portion v^ater over the in view since Quay Wall ? :he same depth as that vessels ^ at the same I accommodate for 15 feet at ate ? lot know that Villi plans are vcr looked at Question,— When were the plans changed to provide for 1ft |>et ? ] Answer.— At the time the contract was let for the cross wall fei '84. There ha,s never boon any change. Question —We were under the impression that the original plans, which you say you have not seen, were providing for less water than 18 feet and that when you gave the contract for the cross wall it was changt^d from 14 or 15 to 18 feet, if I «m not mistaken ? I ! Mr. Perley.— The original depth in the cross wall contract was 15 feet and before we got on with the work W(^ dropped the bottom of the entrance to 18 feet. Question.— In the third part of the letter received from the Commissioners' it states " that after its completion the Wet *' Dock will be able to receive vessels drawing 28 feet."— I ^ould like to ask where will vessels of this draught of water be received and how many will be accommodated at the same time ? Answer. — Vessels drawing 28 feet of water will only be accommodated under the present scheme inside at the cross wall. Question.— And how many ? Answer,— It just depends upon theii length. Question.— T suppose one larg > steamier or two small ones ? Answer.— That is all. Question.— Will there b.' a sufficiency of water at the cross wall for vessels drawing 28 feet to go in and out ? — 14 — Answer. — Yes. Qn Q^-stioiK-I see that Mr Boyd states in his letter of thlAns • •th November last : " As some allowance must be made fn| OSS by evaporation and lenkag-e, if there were steamers J^J ' the Dok drawin- 20 feet it would be necessary to hold tli>*^^ "^ •vater to 14 or 15 feet above zero. In such a cas.>, if the tid ' . outside rose less than 14 feet, the gates could not be open.- '' during that tide" ,. ,, By Mr Answer.— That is true what you state there. The entranc. Q^^' to the Wet Basin will only be through a singl.' pair of o-ate^^nside, consequently tho.se gates .-an only be opened when the wat.^f ^^^^i- in the Basin and the water outside is on the same level Th tide changes here very rapidly at the top of high water Th gates have got to remain open sometimes an hour and som. times an hour and a half Th.- level of the water in th. Basin will be ruled by the water outside. If you have : - very low tide and the water stands higher in the Wet Basil i than outside reaches you cannot open the gates unless yofl op.'u the sluice gates and lower the water in the Basin to thi Q^''^ same level. Consequently, those gates cannot be opene during that tide. Ans^ Ques Ansi 'By Mr An SA Question -Thou I understand from you that ships of ^^ ^^'' certain tonnage will not be able to go in and out at all hig] Qiies tides. There can be nodependencel suppose ? ''iWeguli A HM • , , ween tl Auswer.-lhere might b • a chan,-,- with a strong w. sterlBftm^^ d' wind-a neap tul- when the wind has been blowin- dowi'stimme the fc>t. Lawrence. Th.-re may be then a chance. Question.-Of rourse then we could not depend upon ship 't>l ^'t of that class being accommodated, there as a regular rule ? 41 « Answer— You could accommodate them if you had mor ^'"^ water 8 i — i/i — ;Qu>'stion.-Can jou with the d.-pth conf.-nipliitPfl ? his Icttor of th lAnswor.— No. not with 20 f\M.t of wat.-r. lust bo mudo fn ; w<'re stoaraors j, ^% ^i* Chabot.— Is there any (lifTonMico in the morninir sary to hold tli*|^ night tides in the sprinu- of tlie y(.iir ? a case, if the tid|v..-R ii u , ^ . d not bo openv, I "^^''^ ^'^'''' •''^ *" r>roeure memoranda. By Mr Owen Muiiphv. re. The entrane. QwPstion,— In theovontofa 8 f.-et differeniv outside and J?le pair of gates^O^^^i*'' how lono- wouhl it take with the slnici. crates to d when the wat.'t^^^^i^^' the levels ? '^ same level. Th : » . i . .1 ■ , ■ high water. Th i ^"'^*^^ "^ '^« "«* ^^'"k you .ould do it. hour and som. Question.-You eould not eqaalixe the dilforoneo of 8 foot '^ le water m th. > k i • . If you have ..Answer — No. 11 the Wot Basiw ^^ ^ day ; and he fur.ushes a reeord of l.Tt fides kept last L^ blowing dow«timmer between 1st June and 31 Oetober, as follows, viz.- Pond upon ship ,1 't" ^T '''r^ ^^ -;;^ \l '^ =">'-• --^ ' ^- W. regular rule ? 41 " if you had mor 43 Hand 10 " 10 and IS " more than IM " With a uniform dopth of 15 feot within tho Wot Dock at lov water mark how then .-an th.. tides, the averacr,. of whicl will certainly be less than 14 to If, foot, be depended upo, to permit vessels drawino- 20 ioet,-now that you have already settled th" question of 28 foet.-.nterin- and loavin- daili the Wot Dock morning- and cn-ening- at hig-h water ^ ^ Answer.-Of course you cannot dopond on tho tides as yoi, know. The tides are alFocted here by a -alo down th(, river A strong easterly wind may piK> np a tide until it stands 1^ inches over tho lioor of our olHoo as it has done more thai once. That mig-ht happen in 48 hours. Question.— I suppose we are to understand from yourreph that It will be uncertain and unsafe for vessels drawinn- o, feet to lay inside the Do<-k, except along-side the Cross Wall and vessels of that draft could not always be depended upoi to leave at morning- and evening- tides if required ? Answer.-No, if they wanted to go out on a particula morning, thoy might have to wait. Question.-Dont you think that would interfere with the utility of the Dock supposing a Mail Steamer wanted to m out on a Saturday mornino* ? Am |llate( to lea hamp It wa pond( large Qu( nndei Ans Que for th Ans (^ue posal gate? Ans large 1 the sa Answer —It is entirely due to the plan adopted A sinn-1, gate I may say very plainly will always be the cause ""o .rouble and delay. I have no hesitation in sayin- it and yoi can only overcome it by buildin- a lock. If you had a loci you could pass ships in from dead low water to top hiH water at any time Vessels could pass in and out any hour^o the day. Question.-Do you mean a lock, such as theono ..ontempla ted by present plan. going insist Que would likely Ans^ would gates c not go Wot nock at lov avcran-,. of whic-i ! dopcudcd upoi yoiihav<' alread} nd Icavinir dailj watttr 'i 1 the tides as yoii down th(! river ntil it stands li^ done more thai [ from your ropi) lids drawing 2t ;he Cross "Wall depended upoi ;ired ? on a particula: iterfere with th( r wanted to g( 'pted. A siuglt >e the cause o ying it and yoi you had a loci L^r to top higl Hit any hour o — 17 — Answer.— That is another thing. That lock was contem- plated only to accommodate the schooner traffic. So as Id leave the <>ntrance free to large vessels and not have it hampered with the smaller vessels that frequent the wharves. It was to give them a passage into the Basin free and inde- pendent. That was the objeet of the lock, —not to pass in the large vessels. Question.— The idea of th(^ lock has been abandoned, I understand ? Answer.— I do not think it has been abandoned. Question.— Do you think thi lock is absolutely necessary for the passing in and out of the small craft ? Answer. — I do, Sir. Question.— And that you require all the time at your dis- posal , pass in and out large vessels by the main entrance gate ? Answer.— 1 do, if in the futurt^ we are going to have a large traffic in and out. If the schooner traffic is to increase in the same ratio that the large vessels is to increase, we are going to be blockea with the schooner traffic. They will insist upon their rights. Question.- Do you think that the construction of this W'k would do away with a good deal of the difficulties that are likely to be met with? Answer.— T do, Sir. I think if the lock is made there would be times that it would not be necessary to open those gates during certain tides. We find that the schooners can- on.' contempla ^o^ go to the wharves— do not commence to go there along the 3 — 18— ; Palais until tho tide has rison to 9 feet. That is the first tim. that a voss.'l will ontor and the moim^nt the tide has risen t( Mr that th(^y are just able to crawl up, because the bank stand Port. at the wharves 2 to 3 feet above low water mark, they thei pass up with the tide until the tide has fallen giving- fron Q"* half flood to half ebb. The lock would just give that sam.<**'P''" number of hours accommodation plus one. Question.— Is there no other plan to obviate this ? Mr, might gates. Answer.— Yes, by getting rid of the schooner traflic alto the sv ij-ether. .^, '^ gfates i • -J Question.— I suppose in that case the single gate would hi quite sufficient ? " q^^^. Answer.— It would barring the detention which migl/ ^ arise from the levels. * . Ans Question.— Do you not think there would be a good deal o Que difficulty if,you have one large steamer coming in and anothe ffc. J' going out ? tnemc moruii Answer.— I do not think any steamer— any large steame: Ans^ would enter ther«; without the assistance of tugs. A laro-^ vessel would enter there with very little headway of its owu Q^^^ It is too big a mass to have its own power on. The tug woulc*® ^"^'^^ guide her in and give her headway enough and so I think or a tide you could pass a large number of vessels that way. Ans\ Question.— Would you tell me what tide you could calcu . ^^^"^^ late upon as an average tide for the use of Wet Dock ? ^^^^^ *^ how mi ns\^ Answer.— About 14 to 15 feet, as Mr Boyd has put it there A Question.— If I understand right they say the highest tid. in any case would not be more than 18 feet ? ^ very \o\ 19 at is the first timt tido has risen t( Mu. Forsyth. -I do uot think they say 18 feet in the Re- the bank stand Port. mark, they thei Ih'n giving- iron Question. —What would b.> th(» avera^r,. tide you could give that saniAP'^"^ "PO" • Mr. Pkrley.— About 14 feet might be the average. A tide might run up and run a little out before w,. could^closo the gates. W.> are lutting in large sluices for that puri)ose, throu'^h )oner trafli,- alto tbe swiftness of the current, we might calculate, when the gates are set upon an average of U feet although the tide has Usen lo teet. gate would bt Question.— Depending on that average th»m you would still have 42 tides below that— say about half the tides ? te this ? 'ill which miffh Answer.— I think not, quite so many. 'in fn^'andi',,'^""'""-'':;'"^ " ' '^^""^^ ^^'^ ^^^^ ^^"^ ^^'^ ^^^w-" , m ana auotHt.the morning and evening tides, if there was 15 feet in the morning it might happen there would be 12 in the eveniuo- ? ny large steame: Answer.— Exactly so. )f tugs. A largt Iway of its owu Question.— Can yon depend upon more than half the tides, . The tug woulc*** average 14 feet of water ? md so I think or Is that way. Answer.-I should say, yes. ^ Question —What do you think would be the nnmbi-r of tides that you can depend upon as giving you 14 feet, and how many not ? has put it there . Answer.— I am not able to answer that. the highest tid. ,r ^ Mr. Chabot -I see that this record has been taken at the very lowest period. There is always a dilFereuce of tide in ou could calcu,. et Dock ? — 20 — the moriiino- and ovcniiig In th.' Spriiii-- of the year, we hav. the lii^rh,.Kt tide ill the morninir and in the fall of the year it i:s 111 the evening. I .vrtainly corroborate that the avera-.. tide of 14 feet. Question,— You have the record of so many tides,— could you depend on 14 feet for every one of those tides ? ' Answer.-Oh ! No, Sir ; of course you could not hvraim there are eight tides less, —I think, ten or twelve feet. Mi Shehyn here r.'ad from a record of tides kept durin- the month of October. Question— According to this statement, half of this month gave lower tides than 14 feet ? Answer — Yes. The record of tides kept in the month of June was then read by Mr .Shehyn and he remarked that the mouth of June compared more favorably. There was only one tide in that month that fell below 14 feet. In July there were eight tides less than 14 feet. In September, there were six tides short of 14 feet. In August there were 9 tides less than 14 feet. Mr Perley.- You will notice that those are evening tides Question,— From the record here we may calculate that fully a third of the tides, will l)e less than U feet ^ There are a certain number in any case, and I may say a considerable number, upon which you could not depend upon o-iyino- 14 feet of water ? ^ o Answer.— It is so stated there, Sir. Morr not a An Qu An Qu dam foot c An from across tband Qut Anj along Rochs lais. T Paul has b( more 1 hlixh \ and a is onl here, all th( Would the se- Vessel — 21 — ho yoai% we hav. j Qu.'Htion.-Wrr.- not plans prepared by M.ws Knippl.. aiul iUolthoy,.ar it Horris for th.« coinpli'tioii of the Wct-Do.k, and were th.-y ^lat the averan-.. aol abandoned ? Answer. — Yes. ly tideH,— could tides ? Question —Was there any particuliir reason ? lid not beeaiisi Answer. — IJeeause they were not in kt'ep ng. ^elve feet. Question. -Was it not proposed by that plan to \, by th.' Harbour Commissioners for a further loan for th. works at Quebec the Minister of Public Works stated on thf Qi floor of th<» House, hat hi^ would hav • an examination mad^' of th into the matters at Quebec by a ComnJssion or, Board or something of that kind, and have it submitted to his collea- ^^' gues. That Board was composed of Sanford Fleming and *' ray8(df, for what we considered the improvements of thi q^ Harbour. ment Scheme No. t was to build a watertight dam passing by the (xas house wharf down Leadenhall St., St. Andrews St, and so An enclosing the whob; of the area of the Basin watertight. W.'Minii knew that the C;,!.s Wall was watertight and we assumed Andr that the work' hniit 111 the Louise Embankment would be watertight at the depths shewn. Th First We then submitt.d a second scheme. To buiU i wall thatAndr would not increase the area of the Wet Basin in the .slightestthe Al way. AYe thought then that by building a watertight wall oiithe b the Commissioners' line and dredging here (illustrating on plaii)afc all — 28 — imao-c.s and i.^„^i ^^">' '^^^'^l' ^^'''"1<1 ^>' ^loufd.' its l.Mijrth ami larg-cr revenue V lat, that the plan "^ ^e ^hen stibmitted a thir.l ..heme for hnildinpr a wall wail wasnotconsi- ^^^^^^'' *"'* Commissioners line into the Hasin and Kavuiff a iCrd Fleming and ■ovements of thr n,.,^cfi^„ wt u i 4.1, ■, ■ „ , <.^uestion.— Was it at the recommendation of the aovcrn- ment Engineer that the three plans were abandoned and the , ^, fourth one taken ? im passing by th.' Ludrews St, and so Answer.— I prepared a fourth plan at the request of th" watertight. W. Minister of Tublic Works combining the wall around 8t uid we ;i«sum.(!Aiidrew Street in connection with the cross wall and a lock kment would be There are two reasons why that scheme seemed possible. First it left intact all the property to the northward of St. buiK I wall that Andrew Street that is the wharves now passing or fronting n in the .slightestthe AYe., Basin and did not iiiterf<'re, and so save bridges Bv i^atertight wall outhe building of a lock it gave free access for the schooner traffic ustratiug on plaiiiafc all times of the tide. Answer.— That I am not aware of I am not able to answer that. — 24 — jMr Forsyth h.r.. stated that thos. thnv phtns w.r. discu. sed at great lougth at many meetings of tho Commissioner, lie said:-! ho reason why xve abandoned th.. ,,bm fo budding a wall in the Dock whieh was to ^o from her pointing to plan), to the Oxas Works, was b-eause' we sawtha that was going to eurtail the size of our Dork. The reason fo not carrying out th. oth^r plan which would have noressita ted our buying all that property, was simply b thought m the first place it was the cheapest and that i' would not interfere with any private ri-hts at all, in fact i will improve all the property from here, (illustrating), to th Cxas Works by giving them water at all tides, and, witF perhaps two or three exceptions, the whole of that work cai be built on public property, or on our own prop-rty. Mr SHEHYN-Question.-Will this plan which provides h the construction ofthe Quay wall in St-Aiidrew street -iv, accommodation on this side of the Wet Do<'k for ves^sel drawing 28 feet of water ? Answer.-OhnoSir, that is onlv a dam,-nothingels > in th world— vessels could not approacn within 100 feet from tha wall. Question.-Then I understand this is simply for dammino- „, the water and not intended to accommodate "ships of a larcr. tonnage ? Auswer.-No, not to accommodate ships that would drav one fraction of an inch. 25 laiis were discKs *' Commissioner^ vd tho plnn fo IS to o-o from her I'iiusi' we sawtha k. The reason fo Id have necessitii 7 because we ha* ) doubt that wa s of m.'iking- th diking- hold of th We had not th ^ other plan fo ed. and the mat are because w apest and that i at all, in fact i: Listrating-), to th tides, and, will: of that work cai rop^rty. hich provides fo: rew street gi\> )ock for vessel )thing-els' in th "> feet from tha for damminir u] ihips of a lariT' at would drav Question.— At what distance from that wall in St-Andrew street can works be made to a.'commodat«; vessels of a larg-e tonnage ? Answer— The work is not di^sii^ned for that purpose. The Work to bi' built there is nothin<^ more than a dam with the •ewerage. (Question.— Of <>ourse I understand now that it is not intended to usi- this side for the accommodation of large ves- feels according to the present plans ? I- Answer. —According to the present plans, the Commissio- ners will only use their side of the works. Question.— I know perfectly well that the Harbour Com- missioners can only use what belongs to them. What I mean to say is.— If this South side remains private property, and \vith this wall you propose building will you hereafter be able to give accomodation to vessels drawing 28 feet ? Answer.— Supposing we bought out all those wharves th«'y couhl then put in some quays of the very cheapest des -ription, hollow affairs with a little ballast in them— pro- jecting jetties. That is the benefit that the wall in St Andrew street would give. There is no necessity of putting stone, concrete or any thing of that kind. Question.- To what depth in that case could you dredge ? Answer.— You could dredge to any depth, but always a distance of a})out a TOO feet from that wall and there would be no danger of leakag — 2il — wharves a certai,, dista.ice from St. Androw Street into th,. ]ias„i-what di-stauee from the wall ? Au«wer.-You could dredge up to within the limit, of sa- lay Ihe outside ot the Uailway embankment simply rests on the botto,„ They hare a right to that Vou eouhl'nit ^u Oorrn? ;:"■ '^ ''"--'-t-'hi..? over the street s v < ouia (Ircclg-e all rio-ht, ^ Question.-You could dredge withinto 100 feet to enable large ships to come up V fa.ibUi Answer. -Yes, you never want to dredge any closer. Question.-! understand that at pres,.„t it is the poli,.y oi' he Commission at any rate to make ,„. works of a p rmane," nature except this wall on the South side "'"aiunl Answer.-They do not intend to do any further works only the works necessary to make their basi.f tight str?eTf ""■"''"''' "'■' '^^' ""« ™^' »f '•'^' ^*" - St.Andrew Answer._*220,O00-an estimate made two or three years ago It may vary at the present. It may cost a quarter of ml ion without land damages. There are certain pro pe." el that the Comm,,,.s,oners must obtain,-two openiL n St- Andrew street must be closed, ponds etc. Auswor.-It is the cheapest to close iu the Wet Dork. Question -Would it be the most advanta-n-ous and the most acceptable in view of th.> ^yot dock ^ :: A Q pub oal Bttci Was proT Bug d lor m one of the plans submitt..d by the Uovernment Bnginccrs. by whh-h the luu-cssary accommodation and depth at water will be given on this side of the Wet Dork for ships arawing 28 feet of water-to dredge the basin to a uniform aeptHot 18 leet below low water mark, which is the depth over the sill of the entrance gate,-and thereby todevelope the mil capacity oi the wet dock without further delay? Answer.-Thatjust means all the diiference between one quarter of a million and a million and three quarters. Thai 18 what you have got to face to carry out that s,-heme which you are now proposing. The only question is the question ot money. There is no doubt if you have the money to build a feouth wal there down to 28 feet you would be" doubling the area of the available wharfage, the whole area of the Wei Jiasin, and doubling its capacity. Against that is the o-reat question of cost. And that is a question too without^any land damages. To build that scheme, and to do all the dredging-Mr. Parley here refers to notes and corrects him- self saying: I am a little wrong. It is a million and a quar- ter nstead of three quarters. That does not provide for the purchase ol private property between Leadenhall street and St. Andrew street. The Commissioners would have to buy all tliat property. ^ I By the Mayor, (Question-Then I understand that the ®lterenceisonlyoneofcost, between the wharf now con- templated and the wharf that could accommodate laro-e ves- sels ? =• — 28 — Answer. — Yes. Question.-Aud to add to that the purchase of the laud ? Answer. — Yes. By the Mayor. Questiou.-You do not take into account the amount that these properties would be worth to the Com- missioners V Answer.-No. You are simply asking costs. I am not takin^ tne revenue. ° 13y Mr «HEHY.x._In your opinion, Mr Perley, to complete tnat iJock in a proper way and to make it a iirst class dock so as to give as lull accommodation as it it is possible to give do you think If the Commission had the money that the plan ot giving us a larger area on .his south side would be cer- tainly the most advantageous for the interest of the port ol Quebec. Answer.-If they had the money, yes Sir. If they had two million dollars, they could shove their boundary line further to the Southward, increase the area of the basin and put in a lock entrance. Under these circumstances, there would be no hner dock in the world. Question —According to the present method of c^ompletin.r It our dock will hi> an incomplete dock ? ° Answer.-I do not say that. This is complete so far as th. scheme goes. By the Mayor. Question— It is an inferior scheme ? Answer. — Yes. Question.— It would be much inferior ? Ar Th toth Ml whi< Th infori struc that ] theC have cost? An cost a feet a with ofth< think has n them, spoke and V when wantfc Mr we ca Wet I Ans at the Que or 50 — 29 — se of the laud ? ake into account /orth to the Com- . I am uot takiuij; ley, to complete a iirst class dock possible to give, ley that the plan * would be cer- 3st of the port ol Liiswer - -Yes, hut uot incomplete. The Commissioners are cutting their jL,Mrnien»> laid to keep vessels off from the Quay Wall. It has been done where' they have made a boom or fender and kept them oil". It has hajjpeiied in Harbours where shift, I know. Question. — Even admitting that you can dredge 40 feet from the Quay Wall with 15 feet of water, you eannot aecom- Jiiodate ships of 28 feet, to be depended upon ? Answer, — No but you might get an extra foot oi two sloped away in dredging. Question.— You would have to slope again from the 40 feet Y Answer.— Yes, Question, — Do you consider that if you were obliged to pile drive 40 feet do you consider it a first class work for a Dock such as we have been building ? If the plans were now to be made over again would it not be provided for in a different way than what has been done ? Answer. — Certainly it would. Ten years have elapsed and things have changed since then. Mr Shehyjnt.— W*^ understand now pretty wll the nature of the accommodation we may expect from this Dock and it i.'< not necessary for me to ask any further questions on the matter. So far as I am con<*erned I have exhausted myself The Hon. John Hearn being called on arose and said— I am sure that I in no way misinterpret the feelings of the om may Ix» s been doin' pt them oil", id to do it, — lay Wall. Ig-e 40 i'eef luiot accom- 1 the 40 feet? — 31 — Quebec gentlemen present when I say they are thankfull for the information conveyed by Mr Perley's straight forward answers to the questions submitted to him by the Mayor and the Chairman of the Board of Trade I may also venture to say that the views which I have expressed in the City Council in connection with the Harbour Works have been fully borne out by all that has taken place here this morning. I protested in the Council a-ainst matters so important to the presc-nt and future of Qiiebec being done in the manner then proposed. I took action which led to agita- tion and v.'ntilation of the subject and thereby contributtnl to two sloped yi ^he prevention of apian being carried out which has,accordinn- to the information received to day,been v.^ry wisely abandoned" llad there been no action taken in the matter, and the Citv ( ouncil kept silent on the subject, all the probabilities are that a repetition of the blundering in which these important works wer.. first conceived, and for a long time carried out would have taken place. diged to pile for a Dock e now to be a different elapsed and 1 the nature 3ck and it is | DUS oil thi! 1 ted myself. md said — 1 ings of the The action taken by the City Council h.d to that ven- [tilation, to that discussion, and to that concensus of )pinion which have resulted in a .-omplete change of base Rhe plan whi.di it is now admitted should be the least accept- able to Quebec, and perhaps I should say to the country ^ad been adopted. It is one of the three plans which Mr. Perley iiidMr Floming laid before the government, and thou-h the east acceptable,it was resolved that th.^ works should be com- piecd in keeping with it. Now, however, then.xt best plan to that has been decided upcn, but th. best plan of all, no one tppoars to contemplate . carrying out. Of course we must feep 111 mmd, that we are dealing with Quebec, the old nstoric City of Quebec, whosj future in the judgment of lome of the Harbour Commissioners is of the brightest ^i»d ; y..t, though a.«commodation is to be afforded, as regards 32 — (K'pth of wati'T, for vessuls of the largest toiinago to go to Montreal, care is taken that like accommodation is not to be given to such vessels for business at this port. Mii. rEiii.KY has stated that the Lake St. Peter improve- ments when comi)leted will afford safe passage for a vessel drawing 27 feet. She will b.> able to go to Montreal, lay at the quays, jetti.-s or wharves there. dis;'harge and take in her cargo. In this city, which was the greatest seaport of the Dominion, the cradle of rclinenn'ut, of education and business when Montreal as r^-gards shipping was in its swaddling clothes, this old city, notwithstanding the bright things expected for it, is not to bo provided with any such accommo- dation. We spend money here to a very large amount, but care is taken that it be spent in a way not to se(;ure that accommodation for vessels of a largo draughc of water that has been provided for them to go through Lake St Peter. "Rellect now for a moment and call to mind Mr. Perley's remarks when he said that, if the plans adopted ttm years ago had to be adopted now. they would be of a very different character.Such rcfl,>ction will lead you,! am sure, to concluding whatit is possible the requirements of ten years hence may call for. By taking warning from the blunders of the past you may save yourselves from falling into like blundtTS again. Unfortunately for the country we are always subscribing to a greater extent than We ought, to the miserable doctrine of " Cows fir olF wearing long horns." One nt^eds, forsooth. go across the ht>rring pond, ignore our own scientific men and seek Eni^ineers in the old country. The result of that folly ouu'ht to bo a warnin'j- to us and what wo should determine upon now, in my mind, resolves itself into this, that the people of Quebec, represented hero to-day, should not bi' satisfied, v.uth a second class article. Should not bo satisfied with any plan of completing their decks other than the very I to go to is not to r improve- r ;i vessel •eal, lay at md tak(! in port of the d business swaddlinti- ^ht thing's a(*('ommo- lount, but ie(;ure that kVater that Peter. [r. Perley's 1 years ago 'Y different coneludintr .'6 may call L> past you h'rs again, scribing to doctrine of 5, forsooth, iitific men. lit of that \V(> shoiild to this, that )uld not bi' be satisfied n the very — 33 — best plan. We have it from the highest enginecrinir autho- rity in the country, from the gentleman in whose engineering skill the Governm.-nt places unbounded trust, that the plan we are about carrying out is by no means the best plan— that it will not alford more than one half of the area for the usf of ocean st(»amers and sailing vessels that the improved or best plan would furnish. The adoption of th(^ best plan would involve, it apfx-ars, a inillioii and a half dollars more of expenditure, but an impor- tant factor appears to be lost sight of in the calculation made, and it is this— AVhat increase of revenue would you have from the works by the adoption and execution of the best i)lan '? In order to make our calculation t^orrectly we mu.st take into account that, if tht; expenditure be more, the revenue would also be more, and that the capital which the iu(^rease in revenue would represent, should be placd in the scales against the additional (expenditure. My argument I think will be admitted by all geutlemcm not prejudiced in this connection and, fo?"tunately, there is no one here that has any pedjudice in the matter. I do not say that any jealousy exists in the minds of the public men of this country regar- ding Quebec, but I do say that if the government of the country carry out any other, than the plan which in the opinion of its own engineers is the best for our Port, that then a great wrong will be done to Quebec and tht* chances of benefitting the country at larg(» be decreased. If a vessid coming hc^re drawing 27 feet of water cannot find room in our Dock to discharge and take in cargo, she will proceed to Montreal, and we will have only the pleasure of seeing her as she goes by our doors. Now, Mr Chairman, should we be content in the face of what wi> have learned here to-day ? I think not. We have one common interest in view. We should be influenced and anima- — 34 — it.c tc'd by it, and hIiouIcI not rest on our oars and bo content with any other than the best phm. As a pilot coming- up or ffoin^ down the guii; takes the lights and the buoys for his guide, so 1 taki! the opinions of men like Mr JV-rley when I speak on these matters. I do not venture to say " ////.s- lock is not wanted here— let it stand in abeyance." The government p.opos, d to make matters a little b.tter ibr Quebec but notwithstanding, Harbour Commissioners, stood up and said: — We don'i want the lo-k built. I am sorry thai the gentle- men who pronounced themselves in this manner are not here to-day. In the Old Country and in the Democratic Country, alongside oi us, on occasions of this kind, you liiul foremost men in trade and shipping present. Here you iind gen- tlemen ai tending the ordinary conferences oi' the Com- mission, but on a matter of this promineiice, the moving- spirits, the prevailing geniuses of the Body absent them- selves. The snow has perhaps prevented their attendance. Bt' it what it may, it should be known that the people of Quebi'c exp.'ct them to be on hand wdien matters of this kind art^ brought up, that tht-y may hear what is said, know the feelings of the ])eople, and judge w^hether they should concur with the people in asking- for what they think right. or whether they should dissent from them. I shall not trespass further on your time. I had sincerely hop(^d that in looking at the question of expenditure, parti- cularly when coming within a million and a half dollars, siu'ht would not be lost of the very much greater ri'venue to be derived by the exeiution of the better works, and wrong doing be avoided. 1 wnll not make use of arguments that I think might, aiul may on some other o ca- sion, ho brought forward to show the unfiirness, the terrible unfairness of the manner in which this i)ort of Quebi'c has been treated. The chairman, Mr Forsyth, drew^ the speaker's attention to cut with or S'oi'ii? guidr, 80 speak oil : is not 'cnimcnt 'bee but iiid said : ' g'ciitlc- not licrc C'oiuitry, fort 'most ind i^'cii- ic C^om- iiioving- it thcm- ciidaiici'. ooplc ol" s ol" this d, know Y should ik right, siiKHM'ely re, parti- ci half li g'rcatiT le better ke use ol' ler () ca- lerrible i'be<' has iitioii to -3i ao the fact that the action of the (Government should be lel't out at a in'otino- of this eharaeter. Mr Ilearn said that he was aiming to .how what it was our interest to ha\'e. and it he <-ould only impress on those present that tiles.' interests were being neglected, he thought that that ap[)ertained to the point at issue. The sp'aker continued : — I say that w«' have not been treat- ed as We oug-ht to have been. I do not say this so much to censure the g-overinnent as I do to condemn our own apathy and s''lly enny of one another. 1 think that it rests a g-reat deal with ourselves whether or not wo shall havo the dock com i)leted in the way that according to Mr Perley it .should be. There is no justilication Ibrnot compleiing it in the most desirable way, and I think I am Justiiied in saying that the question of i>xpenditur<' ought not to w"eigh so se- riously with us as to keep us from agitating and demanding throuh all fair and legitimate channels that the dock be completed in the w^ay declared to be the best, by the government's own engineers. In this connection, 1 may be allowed to make reference to an idea which was given expression to by the Mayor at a recent meeting, He said there was very great reason to believe that at no distant date, the Lake St. Peter debt and much of that contract(>d for the improvements in the port of Montreal w^ouldhave to be assumed by th(; Government, and such being the ease, it ought to follow that the debt ot the Harbour of Quebec would also have to be assumed by the (rovernment. The Dominion assuming these debts, Quebec would b(^ blind to its own intt'rests if its people were not to seek for the adoption of g(4ting the best plans, regardless of the objection which has been made on the score ol'cost. Mr. Forsyth here rose and said : The plan w^liich w^ill be — 30 — now <'!imt'uil(liiiii' wluirvt's iiiul clocks lit'rcaricr hul ; until vvc yet tin- money tlu'if will hi' no use of our tiilkiiii^'iihout ^oinu;' into an cxpfudiliN »' oi' lour million. 1 think on the occsaion rciVrrtcl to by tln' Mayor, till' " rcruviaii " was only (lra\vin; to b(» spent for deepi'uing Lake 8t Peter to enable ships drawing 27 feet of water to pro<'tM'd to Montreal thut the j):'opl(» of (^U'b 'c should put Ibrih their b 'st efforts to have the Do'k completed in a way to allbrd as good a •commodation ibr that class of ships to do their business h 're. My friend (Mr. L'orsyth) thought well of correcting me for saying that my way \vlinrv('s it'it' will (lilivc oi" It' Miiyor, toiiiing low ih«'y Ills (lo.'U : i'or the 111;' 27 or I l)y tlmt o ('lllill•^•^' dc oi' tile siiy lliat nu'ctiiij^s ic riiair- oii sonic worlv we 11 nowise lUst lia\'<' It is not the ques- y oi' tliis to enable real thut s to have [iiodation y IVi'Mid ing that -31- ih ' Harbour Commissioners had eonseiited to the plan whie)i is now admitted to be the worst and whieh Inis been aban- doned because it was so objectionable. The (lovemnient adopted that plan and did not ask the Ilarbeur Commis- .sioners' opinion upon it at all, )>ut wln'thi'V or not it wouM have been carried out is a question on which there may be iliiferences ol" opinion. The IIarl)our Commission never ;idoi)ted the plan for they were never asked to pronounce upon it, but they did not, iis I think tliey should luive done, enter their proti'st aii'ainst it. One other point I would like to refer to, is the booniinii' of ships oir the Embankment. AVe know that between Ports, as between individuals, there is always more or less rivalry. If accommodation is to ])e found for vessels at the Louise Embankment only by booinini'' tlieni off, I say that the men interested in the rival port will not be slow to point out the additional expense to merchants })y their vessels havini^ to throw their cargoes from slings for a distance of 40 to GO feet, as compared with that of vessels laying alonirside the quay. Of course in the one case it is Quebec — in the other Montreal, and it is uniortunately too often l)elieved that anything is good enough for Quebec. Harbour Improvements or anything else.— It is for Quebec, and not only must it be second hand but a lifetime has to be passed over before it is brought to a completion. Vigilance, a gcod authority tells us, is the price of liberty. Quebecers would do well to remember thiit it is also the price of mate- rial and moral advancement. Mr Owen Murphy. Assuming with this sewerage wall which is involved in this j)lan will you convey to us any idea of the approximate or i)robable time when these these works will be brought to a > now ? Mr. Forsyth Two years from now, Mr. ii. Turner, l^^rom that I understand that the work will he comph'ted lU'xt season ^ A.— Not the work we are g'oing- into now. It will be two years from the sinning- of th<' contract, two seasons. Mr. Murphy. The Docks will be com])let..d in the openin- of 1889, is that the idea t Mr, Perly.— There is a date fixed in the speciKcation. Mil TURNER.-Would not that quarter millim dollars which this dam IS to cost—would it not be saved by building this wall. I am speaking of ihat wall which you (Mr. p'erley) proposed that would nec-Hsitate the purchase of private property ^ i- y^^y^^y Answer.— Of course there is no necessity of buildino- the wall, only the necessity of spending fifty or sixty thousand dollars m building an indc^pendent sewer. To build an inde pendent sewer it would cost about fifty or sixty thousand dollars. Mr. PERLEV.-Tl.e date fixed by the specification for the completion of the work is the J]lst October 1888. By the Mayor,— C'ould this work b.. proceeded with Ihi^ winter ? Mr. PraiLEY.— No, Sir, miruit or ' oppimiii- 11. rs which tiiig thi8 Perley) private ling the housand an inde- honsand for the ith this vork will ill bi' two I !( -- 39 — Mil. Murphy.— A report has been put in riivulatiou that the Libor iutercstw have been vi-ry much iutorfored with in 'jouscquonce ol'tho bringing about by the authorities of the City and the Council of the Board of Trade of this meeting. The Board of Trade and City C^ouncil have b.>en actuat.-d by a desire in bringing about this conference with the Harbour Conimis- •sioners to be enlightened and enlightened we have been in a very intelligent inamu'r. In moving in the direction we did move and arriving at the satisfa tory feature which presents itself here to day 1 feel that our work was a laudable one and one that should receive the economiuns of thi' public A report has been put into circulation that the interests of our unfortunale laboring class of this City who are in neid of i'luployinent has been interfered with from Montreal in the delay in not giving ont this contract immediately. They have a grievance and the Mayor will as 1 undirstand give you an idea of what occurred yesterday. The Mayor : I received a deputation yesterday, accompanied by some parties not belonging to the labor organization and they reproached mc; with being an obstructionist. They in- formed me they had be.'ii most distinctly and positively told that if it had not been for mo. that the new Work would have been commenced yesterday and i)roceeded with without intervention. I said your informants are simply knghing at you. I further told them I did not see how work of that des- on each side you ari' not going to advance the \/ork one bit you will do no service biit harm as you can only remove 4 or 5 feet and there it will remain until tln' snow has jjTone. I say this honestly, and I have had forty years experienct^ of it. 1 have been on the Cout i-actors side of the house too — not Engineering all the time, Mr Peter. With all due deference had I the contract for this work I certainly would commence it at onci\ The Mayor. — I understand from the e.\:i)l!inalions given by Mr Perley that he thinks the plan adopted is not the best one of a lirst class quality but in the future we might have that plan carried out. Supposing in the future it is desired to mprovi' th(^ dock and nudvc wharves along the south part lit to accommodate tlu^ largest ships would the wsrks that are to be carried out with the exception of the si^we.i. — Would the dam that is to be built be at all necessary supposing a wharl' — 41 — 11 is not . n-iuoval n'k'y will •ly. Th.- Led twiiM> hero you little of Mr I'er- IMlgtll ol' H'Uts UJ> : one bit ove 4 or L^oiie. I nee ol'it. too — not t for this iveii by l>est one ive thai 'sired to part lit it iirt^ to mid the a wharl' was to be built hereafter i To my mind it seemed quite elear that the .^200,000 represent the exa<-t <-ost of the dam, not taking- into aeeount the sewer y Mr PHULEY.-The sewer is built ill th.. Wall and meorpo- raedinthe wall- An independent srwer would .-ost that hity or rixty thousand dollars. By th<' Mayor. Question.-I unuerstand that |200,000 of the money that is going to be spent will be wasted if it is deeided hereafter to make the do,-k a first class doek, that dani will be of no use with the exception of the sewer inside 01 the wall. ^IR. Perley.-I think you are a littlemistaken. If in the tuture It IS desirable to improve the southern side of the Wet Basin you have got all the work in the southern Md(> that you want you dont want to build a .tone wall or a^nythingofthekind. It w^ould be desirable to remove all tho,^. old wharves and build a series of jetties into the Ilarbour. If you look at the basins i,i Liverpool and on the C l>^e you will find ships lying moored in the centre of those basins. The southern side may be improvd by building a scries ol .-ribworks or ,)iers of the cheapest possible cons- triiction. The Mi.yor here rose and moved seconded by Mr. Sh..hyn -t vote of thanks to Mr. IN-rley for the satisfa.'torv explanations given by hini on :ill the points submitted. Mr Hearn said : I nni quite satisH<.d, Mr Chairman, that never were thanks su.h as are now proposed better merited We have had from Mr Perley what might be expected from a" manol his hi-h standing and reputation. It ivmains to be seen whether those wishing our city (fod sp..ed, will keep well m mind what he has told us and be iruided and 42 — iiiil \\ rliiii UciKM-d hy it. II.. has siiid that, thouo-h m iiy be considered for tlie wants oi' the d VVe are "•(•ttiiirp air nnprovenuiits. we are not «>-.(ti iiy tolerably lis therefore to keep in mind onr dut iii»- the best. It behov OS iind wheth er i"s, as Citizens of Qncb ev. briiio- about the prolitabl this eoiiferenee. or not we eonld by a unit.^d ellbrt, bo ablo to T 'suits that should spring from The Chairnian then put the mot with a< t'lamation. ion which was adoptod Mr. Perley in roturninff thanks said : .My day and what I have said has only be( my duty as Chief En a l)r(\sence hero to ■n on tho strict line of n-ineerofthe Harbour Commissionc^rs of oc qnvh Aftor a vote of thanks to tho Chairman Mr. 1 mootino- torminatod. orsvth th( -^-S¥^*^