60 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE: 3Ir.
J.
Ernest Grubb, Suir Steam Navigation Company.
'A Oct.
1906.
Appendix Xo.
6.
Statement Xo.
1.
Statement Xo.
i'.
to the Board of Works as successors to the Directors General of Inland Navigation for Ireland, and was in¬ formed that they had no funds at their disposal for im¬ proving the navigation.
13805.
Have you made any more recent application ?
—To the Department of Agriculture in 1902 or 1901, and Mr.
Oliver's Report was the outcome of that applica¬ tion.
13806.
But nothing more has come of it ?—The
Depart¬ ment of Agriculture informed me that they had not sta¬ tutory powers which would enable them to use the funds which they had for that purpose.
May I continue the evidence ?'
Since I sent you the evidence I was able to add a few more words to it.
May I proceed ?
13807.
Certainly ?—The
statistics of the sea-going vessels I need not read, probably.
13808.
If you will hand them in we shall be much obliged ?—I
'will do so.
I would like to read you the statistics of the craft engaged on the Inland Navigation, which is important.
There are owned in Waterford by about fourteen persons or firms about thirty-two barges carrying 30 to 60 tons each (average burden 35 or 40 tons), mostly employed within 10 miles of Waterford, and none of them trading west of Carrick-on-Suir.
Besides these barges those owned by New Ross people and the Grand Canal Company's barges trade to Waterford, also a few owned by parties residing on other parts of the river.
About six barges are owned by parties residing between Waterford and Carrick-on-Suir, twenty-six barges are owned at Carrick-on-Suir by ten individuals or firms; they carry 35 to 60 tons each, average tonnage about 43 tons ; about fourteen of these twenty-six barges trade to Clonmel and Waterford, the remainder trade to Waterford only.
The Grand Canal Company's boats trade occasion¬ ally to Carrick-on Suir.
They can ply between the Shannon, Dublin, Waterford, and Carrick-on-Suir.
One Clonmel firm owns five barges winch trade to Waterford.
The total number of barges belonging to Waterford, Clonmel, and intermediate places is about seventy, averaging about forty tons burden.
The following is the amount of traffic on River Suir west of Waterford as given in evidence before the Bridge Commission at Waterford in the spring of 1903: Carried in one week to and from places east of Carrick-on-Suir about 33 cargoes, equal to 920 tons; to and from Carriek-on-Suir 25 cargoes, equal to 1,125 tons; to and from Clonmel, etc.—50
cargoes, equal to 650 tons.
Total in one week 108 cargoes equal to 2,695 tons.
If this rate of traffic was maintained over the whole year it would work out to 5,616 cargoes of 140,140 tons, I believe the week was an exceptionally cood one, and that it would not work out to as much.
The proportion of this trade carried into Clonmel was then estimated at 33,800 tons, all of which traffic would be assisted by the chain towrage system we:e it available.
The goods carried up river I have already mentioned.
The tonnage carried has decreased since 1903, and on account of the long-continued drought in 1906 (which ptill continues), only about 300 or 350 tons have been of late carried weekly into ClonmeL The low water does not affect the Carrick-on-Suir trade, as the Ruir is tidal to there.
The number of families directly supported by the river trade is considerable, being about 100 residing at Waterford and about 100 more at Clonmel, Carriek-on-Suir, etc.
These numbers are exclusive of quay labourers, etc.,
engaged in loading and unloading the "barges.
In 1835 there were, it is stated, ninety-three boats plying to Clonmel against nineteen now.
The exports from Clonmel are given for that year as 51,000 tons byr river.
Respecting the improvements, I wanted to 'remark especially that no complaints have ever been made by fishery owners about these works (that is the works carried on occasionally by the boat-owners), that they ever injured the fishery interests.
They probably facili¬ tate the passage of fish up the river.
I have had some little experience in getting the rapids on the river cleared and spur weirs erected.
Much of this work can be easily done when the river is low with manual labour and without machinery.
The spur weirs on the river have always been built of loose stones without mortar or cement, and they are therefore cheaply erected.
It was stated in 1835 that sixty years previously Sir William Osborne obtained a grant of £15,000 (that is what I referred to), from the Irish Government for river and trackway improvements, and that only a small portion of that amount was expended.
Previous to that date the barges were hauled from Carrick-on Suir to Clonmel by gangs of men and women.
It is stated that a further grant of £1,000 was made about 179$ for the improvement of the trackwray, Carrick-on-Suir t j Clonmel, under an Act of the Irish Parliament.
Very much more considerable sums were expended in the 18th century by the Irish Parliament on navigations and canals in other parts of the country, for which see the Board of Works Blue-book of 1878, which I have no doubt you have, and I will be happy to lend it to you otherwise.
it gives the amount expended by the Irish Parliament on the different navigations.
Our Suir Navigation appears to have been treated in a parsimonious manner then as well as during the 19th century, in which period 1 cannot trace any grants to have been made towards its improvement.
In conclusion I wish to remark that although I have dealt only with the River Suir Navigation in compiling this evidence, I am of opinion that great advantage would arise by connecting the Suir and Shannon Navigations through the important towns of Cahir and Clonmel along the line of the rivers.
This scheme was prominently brought forward a century or more ago.
I believe that there would be a considerable return on the expenditure.
13809.
Would that be through Tipperary ?—Through
the town of Tipperary.
The configuration of the country lends itself to such a project, th= gradients being entirely favourable past Cahir, from Cahir to Limerick.
13810.
Would it be on very much the same line as the railway runs in now ?—Very
much the same line.
I ex¬ amined the plans in the British Museum Library that were made out for the Irish Parliament at that time, and I think they we re under the control of the Directors General of the Inland Navigations of Ireland, and amongst the many schemes laid up in the British Museum Library there was-one especially suitable which nearly followed the line of the railway as you say.
I am in favour of a central (National) State management of ail our inland waterways with local Advisory Boards, and I believe that such management would develop the trades and prosperity of each district !
supplied with waterways.
Count}r Tipperary has given !
proof (since 1793 at least if not also earlier)—this is in reply I to the printed query in the Draft Heads of Evidence— ' of its appreciation of the importance of the waterway !
to Clonmel by an annual expenditure out of local taxation on the trackway.
It has also within recent years on three occasions assisted private efforts to deepen the Suir under the Grand Jury Act and Local Government Act of 1898, which adopted said Act.
I am of opinion that the improvement of the waterways should be a State Contributor, charge.
It is impossible that the works required could be carried out by local taxation.
Local taxes cannot bear such an additional burden, especially in poor districts such as Carrick-on-Suir, where the rateable valuation of £8,572 and population of 5,420 shows an average per head » which comes very near to the limit of what is called a " congested district."
(These congested districts receive, as is well known, very substantial free State aid.)
In reply to the Queries addressed to Agriculturists, I may say that very large quantities of agricultural produce pass over the Suir Navigation, and a large tonnage of feeding stuffs, manures, etc.,
are received inwards by it.
It frequently happens that the impediments to the navigation caused by the need of improvements occasion delays in transit, and goods are constantly refused for wTant of means of transportation.
A canalisation of the river, or even sub¬ stantial improvements as indicated, leading up to a successful chain haulage system to Clonmel, would afford great facilities to traders and agriculturists and materially cheapen the cost of transit.
I want you to take me as altogether in favour of a canalisation system if it were not too expensive.
13811.
(Sir Francis Hopwood.)
You have been good Statistics of enough to refer to some figures, but I should be glad if Traffic.
at your convenience you could put in the tonnage of traffic up and down on the Suir Navigation for two or three or four years past ?—Carried
by barges ?
13812.
Yes ?—It
would be impossible to obtain it satisfactorily; I have done my best at it in giving the evidence which I complied very carefully over one week for the Bridge Commission at Waterford in 1902, showing what it would work out at as a total.
It would be almost impossible, the ramifications of the river are so many and
