Page 55 - Bulletin 18 2014

52

in turn meant less business for the railways. The Committee also noted the trend in fishing (in

the Home Country) towards steam trawlers and believed it would undoubtedly manifest itself
here and needed to be anticipated, together with the associated need for cold storage facilities

with good rail access to Cape Town and the interior.

Everyone consulted by the Select Committee agreed that the only practical solution was a

harbour and many believed that either of the plans under consideration would suffice for the

next 100 years. After considering the evidence it recommended Westhofen’s plan because it
was larger and only slightly more costly than Methven’s smaller alternative.

However, when Methven learnt of the existence of the Committee and its findings he was
incensed and challenged their recommendation in an eight-page report to Parliament in

December 1902. He accused Westhofen of misleading the Select Committee and rebutted

numerous of his claims and calculations. With this he submitted a considerably revised plan,
with costs, and showing a phased construction programme: Section No. 1 comprised a 450 ft.

southern breakwater and northern breakwater enclosing a 5 acre basin; Section No. 2

comprised a 600 ft. lengthening of the breakwater plus additional northern breakwater
enclosing a total basin area of 11 acres, with 5.5 acres of foreshore reclamation. (Fig. 2.8.)

Westhofen, in turn, added a submission in April 1903 in which he clarified certain
engineering details and revised some of his cost calculations.

Arthur C Hurtzig’s recommendations

Methven’s challenge placed the Colonial Government in a quandary and they submitted both

schemes to London for independent evaluation. This was done by Mr. Arthur C Hurtzig

(1853 - 1915) M.I.C.E., a consulting engineer with offices in Westminster, and considerable
experience in small harbour construction. He reported on 11 June 1903 after evaluating both

schemes in terms of their desirability in solving the stated problems, their suitability as

regards the type of works and construction methods, and their sufficiency in terms of their