439
3. Before laying before you the details of the new scheme, I will recapitulate the somewhat intricate history of the reports and negotiations which have led to its adoption, and in order to elucidate my remarks, I attach a small plan of the City on which are indicated all the various sites which have been selected or considered suitable for the new Post Office, and which are now abandoned in favour of that which I have mentioned.
4. The matter was first dealt with by the Committee appointed by Sir WIL- LIAM ROBINSON in 1894, which recommended in its report, dated November, 1896, that the Post Office should be erected on a site on the Reclamation. From the Appendix to the report, specifying the conditions of competition subject to which it was proposed to invite designs from Architects, it will be seen that the site, which I have marked "A" on the accompanying plan, was the one selected.
5. Subsequently Messrs. ASTON WEBB and INGRESS BELL, who were appointed Architects for the new Law Courts, selected site "A" as the most suitable for the Courts and recommended that the Post Office should be erected on site "B”.
6. This recommendation was referred by His Excellency the Governor to the Public Works Committee, which decided that the existing site marked “C” on plan, was more central and suitable for the purpose than site "B" and would afford the desired accommodation if the area at present occupied by the Courts were added to it.
7. The Committee's proposal, though good in many respects, is open to serious objections, the principal being that excessive delay and inconvenience would be caused in the carrying out of the work.
8. To explain this, I must emphasize the fact that the new Post Office was to embrace the sites of the present Post Office and Supreme Court, and that, at the present time, practically half the ground floor of the Supreme Court is oc- cupied by the Post Office.
9. It will, therefore, be seen that before the construction of a new Post Office can be begun on the existing site, both the Courts and the Post Office must be removed.
"
10. The removal of the former to the building to be erected upon site “
"A will not take place before 1905 at the earliest, nor will its removal render possible the commencement of the new Post Office for the reason mentioned in paragraph 8.
11. It follows, therefore, that, in order to admit of the new Post Office being begun within a reasonable period of time, both the Courts and Post Office (includ- ing the Treasury) must be removed to temporary premises. The idea of procuring suitable accommodation otherwise than by erecting temporary buildings must be dismissed because investigations have shown that no suitable buildings are avail- able.
12. Putting aside the inconvenience and expense which would be caused by the erection of temporary buildings, there is the serious risk attached to such a proposal of a fire occurring which might involve irreparable loss.
13. The only other important objection to the proposal is that all Mails arrive or are despatched by steamer and consequently the disadvantages of a Post Office which does not front on the Harbour are very great.
14. Having thus dealt with the sites hitherto recommended, I will now turn to the one (marked "D" on plan) which has recently been put forward.
15. The advantages possessed by this site are undoubtedly great, and it will • be observed that its distance from the present Post Office is so inconsiderable that it may be disregarded. They are as follows:-
(1.) It is on the Harbour Front..
(2.) It is adjacent to the principal landing place of the City-Blake Pier.