74/345.
Memo.
0.0.
17604
REOP
(REG 20 WC 96
285
I can see no grounds whatever for varying or waiving my original recommendation as to the provision of booms. Messrs Meyer and Co. appear to have overlooked the fact that this suggestion was made as a concession, in fact, to their objections to construct a dock; it was an alternative precaution, of course, if they chose to construct a dock, there will be no reason for insisting on booms, which are merely, if I may so express it, a floating dock. But in my judgment, it is essential that one or the other precaution be adopted.
The fact that no such condition exists at the place mentioned in Para. 12 of the letter from Messrs Leigh and Orange is no sufficient reason against booms. The conditions of that installation may be entirely different from those which were submitted to me in respect of Messrs Meyer and Co's proposed installation. I am not aware whether I was ever consulted respecting the place in question. I know that in the case of a proposed installation by Messrs Samuel, I certainly recommended booms strongly, and I have always supposed that this precaution was insisted on (B.746/212 4th April 1893).
17
The