Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Carlo's patriotism is called into question

Did Carlo experience any discrimination due to his Italian background?  His Italian birth didn't seem to have any negative effect on his career and it does appear that he was well liked by many Victorians, who viewed him with much affection and respect. But I did come across this article where an 'unpleasant incident' occurred and his patriotism during the First World War was called into question at a public meeting, which seemed a bit ironic as Italy was on 'our' side during the War.

This article is from The Age of July 26, 1916. You can read the full article here


AN UNPLEASANT INCIDENT
Addressing a meeting of about 200 public servants outside the Government Printing Office yesterday, Mr J. W. Billson, M.L.A., member of the State Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, made an earnest appeal for co-operation and assistance in the flotation of the new war loan. Mr W. Cattanach, chairman of the State Rivers and Walter Supply Commission, presided. The meeting was marked by an unpleasant incident, in which the central figures were Mr C. Catani, Chief Engineer, and Mr. Kerrigan, an official in the Treasury department. At the conclusion of Mr. Billson's speech, the chairman asked those present if they desired any information regarding the loan.
Mr Kerrigan: Yes, I want to ask a question. Do you think the stoppage of increments* by the Victorian Government is likely to increase the sale of bonds  (Cries of 'Don't answer him' and uproar, in which a voice was heard, 'Put him out.')
Mr Kerrigan (moving towards the crowd): Who said 'Put him out'? Who said 'Put him out'?
Mr C. Catani (stepping forward): 'I said 'Put him out!'
Mr Kerrigan: Oh, you, you're a foreigner. (Uproar)
Mr Catani: I am not a foreigner. I have a son fighting for us. He's over in France now - fighting for you and me. You are a cur!
Mr Catani's voice was scarcely audible above the uproar. Several of those present assumed a threatening attitude towards Mr Kerrigan, and one gentleman planted himself in front of that official in the 'shaping-up' attitude. For a moment it seemed as if the advice of Mr. Catani was to be put into practical effect, but the chairman called the attention of the meeting  back to the speaker, and the incident passed off. Mr. Billson said he refused to answer a question which he considered invaded political ground. 'I ask you to help us to beat the Germans,' he added, 'and then you can fight your own battles and divide the spoils'.

This is a precis of the rest of the article -  Mr. Billson, in the course of his remarks, went onto to say that provision needed to be made for the payment of 300,000 troops abroad  and the pensions of the dependants of those who had been killed, they also had to provide ammunition and equipment and this was at a cost of one million pounds per week, plus the normal expenditure for the government which meant 1,500,000 pounds was needed per week.....To do that he was appealing to them to do their utmost, according to their means, to help in the flotation of the new war loan. ......The war loan was a good investment, and they could not get a better. He appealed to them with confidence to help the Federal Government to make the flotation of the loan a success. A resolution was then put by the chairman that the meeting support in every manner possible the flotation of the war loan, and this was carried with enthusiasm.
.
Mr J. W. Billson was John William Billson (1862 - 1924), Member for Fitzroy and at one time Deputy Leader of the Labour Party- read about him here in the Australian Dictionary of Biography.
Mr W. Cattanach was William Cattanach (1863 - 1932) who was appointed to the newly created State Rivers & Water Supply Commission in 1906 and became Chairman in 1915. You can read more about him in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, here.
I don't know anything else about Mr Kerrigan.

*An announcement made in June 1916  that Public Servants over and above a certain Grade (earning £336 per annum) would not receive their normal increments such as the yearly increases they receive whilst advancing through their class or grade and their end of band payments. Read about it here - perhaps Mr Kerrigan was one of those who would miss out on this increment.

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Carlo and Catherine Hanley are married by the Reverend Nathaniel Kinsman

On May 18, 1886 Carlo married Catherine Hanley. They were married by the rites of the Free Church of England at Moor Street, Fitzroy by the Reverend Nathaniel Kinsman.  Their address on the marriage certificate was listed as Marney Street, Fitzroy. I believe that this is actually Mahoney Street which can be pronounced as Marney as I cannot find a Marney Street in any old street directory in Fitzroy and this is confirmed as when their first child, Edward, was born a few weeks later on June 2, 1886 their address was  Florence Cottage, Mahoney Street, Fitzroy. The marriage certificate tells us the usual information - Carlo  was 33 and Catherine was 26; he was an engineer, Catherine's occupation was the all purpose 'lady'; his parents are listed as Enrico and Augusta (nee Geri) Catani and Catherine's folks are listed as John and Anne Hanley - John was a farmer. I can't read Anne's maiden name on the marriage certificate (see below). Carlo had been born in Florence and Catherine has her place of birth as Belfast, Victoria, the original name for Port Fairy.

 
From the Marriage certificate of Carlo and Catherine

So far so good, however I am not sure that I believe the Catherine Hanley story - was that her true name? We can't find her index to her birth, I can find no other children born to a John and Ann(e) Hanley born in Victoria, neither can I find the death of  person in Victoria with John Hanley as the father and Ann(e) as the mother; I can find no Hanleys born in the Port Fairy area between 1850 and 1870. There is evidence that the Hanleys were in the area in the 1910s, for instance Edward Hanley took up the proprietorship of the Port Fairy Gazette, sometime after 1902 according to the obituary of his wife, Ethel, which you can read here.

I also can't find a death of a John or Ann(e) Hanley with a Port Fairy connection, I bought the death certificate of the Anne Hanley who died in 1879 and that was not her - she only been in the country for three months and she did have  a daughter Catherine, who was 40 years old, around 20 years older than Catherine Hanley who was born, according to the marriage certificate around 1860. Neither can I find the record  of a marriage of a John Hanley to an Ann(e).  I have also checked Ancestry database and cannot find any matching records.

From the Marriage certificate of Carlo and Catherine - showing the Reverend Kinsman signature

So, clearly lack of corroborating evidence is not normally enough to convince me that Catherine's information of her marriage certificate may have been untrue, so I thought I would see if the witnesses to the wedding gave us any clue to her identity - they were Lydia Kinsman and Maria Lancaster. Lydia was the wife of the minister, Nathaniel Kinsman.  She died in 1905 at the age of 80 (thus born around 1825) and the Index to Victorian Deaths has her parents listed as Jonathan Leeming and Ruth Lancaster, so I presume that Lydia and Maria were cousins or some other relation.  Kinsman's obituary said that he married in 1845 and they had no children. Either way, this seemed to indicate that they, the witnesses, were not connected to Catherine Hanley, genealogically wise, so that was a dead end. Then I put Nathaniel Kinsman name into Trove and is he a true treasure trove of surprises.


The Weekly Times March 5, 1898

It turns our that the Reverend Kinsman founded his own church, the Free Church of England, and celebrated close to 10,000 marriages, including that of Carlo and Catherine. Here is an excerpt from his obituary published in The Weekly Times, March 5 1898 - read it here

Mr Kinsman founded the Victorian Free Church of England in 1862, taking as the nucleus of the new establishment a portion of the congregation, of St Mark's Church, Fitzroy. It was he who drew up the 'principles' of the new church, and he always entertained a conspicuous pride in them. Indeed, it was his constant habit on Sundays to stand at the door of his little church in Abbotsford street, Fitzroy, and regard them with affectionate interest. Anyone who has read the invariable procedure of new churches will recognise, as a matter of course,  that Mr Kinsman, the moving  spirit in the secession, naturally dropped into the position of head minister for life. In that capacity he was recognised by the State, and he was authorised not only to celebrate marriages himself, but to recommend others for similar privileges. These two powers exercised a notable effect upon his after career. The first laid the foundation of his stupendous marriage business. The second involved him in disputes which more than once threatened the disruption of the church and the consequent stoppage of the cheapest and easiest method of tying the nuptial knot ever known in Victoria Felix.

It goes on to say that Kinsman also operated a second hand furniture business and auction rooms The auctioneer walked out of his shop into his private parlor and by the simple act of crossing the mat was transformed  into the priest. The couples, mostly extremely young, and sometimes extremely old, seated themselves on the  well worn sofa, sanctified by so many  thousands of similar union, and the whole thing was over in a very few  minutes. The parson went back to his shop, and the happy couple departed to realise the meaning of 'Till death us do part'

It is an undoubted fact that many fortunate marriages have been conducted by Mr Kinsman. It  is also a fact equally undoubted that the proportion of divorces and other disagreeable proceedings consequent upon these Fitzroy unions is very large. How did Mr Kinsman work up this enormous business, and why, in spite of the stigma which attached to marriages celebrated by him  did couples come from all parts of the colony for the express purpose of being  united in Mr Kinsman's little front parlor. To use the words of a member of his congregation 'Because he charged small fees, and asked no unnecessary questions'. 

The Reverend Nathaniel Kinsman, c. 1880. 
Photographer: William B. Latimer.

It is this last sentence 'asked no unnecessary questions' that I believe strengthens my case that Catherine Hanley  did not give the the correct information - was she hiding something? I wondered if she had been married before and divorced (or married and not divorced). Alternatively, she may have honestly believed that John and Ann were her parents, that she had been born in Port Fairy as that is what she had been told by them or whoever raised her. My other thought is that she was born illegitimately and may have been raised by members of the Hanley family.  However, why then would they need to be married by the Reverend Kinsman - Carlo was in  a good and respectable job, so money wasn't the issue. Why did they only get married two weeks before the birth of their first child, that's why I wonder if she wasn't already married and waiting for the divorce. Or maybe they were just the original Fitzroy hipsters who had decided that marriage was just a piece of paper and that love was all they needed, but, all of  a sudden two weeks before the baby was born, a cloud of conventionality descended upon them and they decided to go down the marriage aisle after all. Who knows? And yes, I know that none of this matters now or that it in any way diminishes Carlo's career or the family life he shared with Catherine and their children, so if you think my theory that Catherine Hanley provided false information on her marriage certificate, either deliberately or innocently, is  rubbish then I will be happy to be proven wrong!


If you are interested in the Reverend Nathaniel Kinsman I have created a list of newspaper articles on him and some of his marriages that ended with bigamy charges on Trove, click here to access the list. 


Monday, October 22, 2018

Carlo's Naturalisation in 1892

Carlo Catani was naturalised in 1892 - what date? Not sure - he filled out the form on February 15, it was witnessed on February 16, his 'Memorial for Naturalisation' was acceded to on February 18 but he still had to take an Oath of Allegiance and pay one pound for the 'Letters of Naturalisation' to be prepared and issued. Carlo's Oath of Allegiance was done on March 11, the date the money was receipted. I don't know how the Naturalisation process works - is the date February 18 or the day the Public Service received the money which was March 11? These papers have been digitised by the National Archives of Australia.

National Archives of Australia NAA: A712, 1892/U1939

The envelope the Naturalisation papers are contained in

National Archives of Australia NAA: A712, 1892/U1939

Memorial for Letters of Naturalisation - this is what we would call the application form and is signed and dated February 15, 1892

National Archives of Australia NAA: A712, 1892/U1939

Carlo's Oath of Memorialist - declaring in front of a witness, W. Galbraith, J.P,  that what he said was true, dated February 16, 1892. William Galbraith was the Secretary for the Public Works Department - was promoted to that position in July 1889 and he retired in  September 1893 and he died in 1905.

National Archives of Australia NAA: A712, 1892/U1939

W. Galbraith, who witnessed Carlo's Oath (above), certified that he had know Carlo for three years.

National Archives of Australia NAA: A712, 1892/U1939

Carlo had to pay one pound for his Letters of Naturalisation, dated February 18 1892 and Carlo's Oath of Allegiance is dated March 11, 1892.

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Carlo and the 'popular culture' magazine 'Table Talk'

We all know about Trove - one of my favourite things of all time - it has (amongst other things) digitised Australian newspapers from 1803  and was designed by Librarians at the National Library of Australia (and I'm a Librarian, so that makes my heart sing). Anyway, one of the more interesting (to me)  newspapers on Trove  is Table Talk: a journal for men and women - in reality, it's not much more than a gossip magazine, it's light entertainment - it had extensive social columns and covers all the Society weddings or fashionable weddings as they call it, a  fashion column and the comings and goings of society folk, theatre and bit of political gossip.   So I wondered did Carlo ever feature in Table Talk?  As it turns out, not very often, but he doesn't sound like the type of person to chase the limelight just for the sake of  it. 

Here's a nice account of  Carlo from February 15, 1912  - a cheery son of Italy, an eye for landscape garden effects and a model of urbanity and discretion and Ministers like him so well that they will be induced to father his road beautification schemes, even when they scarcely know where the money is to come from.



 Table Talk  February 15, 1912
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article146573700

Carlo has found for himself a  legitimate war time activity  - that of providing lanoline to the Italians, where there was a shortage according to his  brother, Lieutenant Colonel Catani. I wonder if anyone used his skills as a  intelligent interlocutor to export their lanoline to Italy? We do also find out that he is practical and creative and add that to the urbane and discrete characteristics from the previous article and we are building up quite a nice picture of Carlo and his personality.



Table Talk November 11, 1915
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/146640912


This is a report of his retirement  - this is a  great description of him (and a less flattering one of his colleagues) - Catani is about the only man who ever galvanised the Victorian Works Department into anything in the form of aesthetic life. Probably he was able to do so much with the slow moving civil servants around him because he was blessed with unusual vigor himself and could paint a rosy scheme in treble languages. He was about the best story teller the Department ever had, so that in addition to losing an able engineer, the service is parting with a pleasant social light. 

 Table Talk May 3 1917
http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article146475536


This is an interesting article called Beautiful Victoria: Notes on our Tourists' Resorts and it  talks about Carlo's visionary planned 'motor road' from Melbourne to Sorrento. The article has some neat descriptions of the towns around the Bay, most of which are now suburbs.

Table Talk October 27, 1921

What else does Table Talk have to say about the Catani family? It had a lot to say about Carlo's brother, the artist Ugo (or Signor Catani as they refer to him) but that will be a future blog post. I could only find about 15 mentions of the Carlo family - here are some of them - In September 1912, Miss Vera Catani was a bridesmaid at the wedding of Sydney Cullis-Hill and Grace Court. She wore a  pretty pale blue crepe-de chine frock, trimmed with plaited frill and a pearl Juliet cap. There were a few other mentions of Vera at social events, including  one from July 1913 when she attended the St Kilda Dinghy Club Ball - the bright and enjoyable dance was held at the St Kilda Town Hall - Miss Catani wore a white satin frock with geranium red tunic.  You can read a bit about the Dinghy Club here on the St Kilda News website. In January 1918, Mr Catani and the Misses Catani were guests at Erskine House in Lorne. In July 1932, Table Talk announced the engagement of Enid to Keith Kenneth McKenzie of Richmond. In 1932 she was around 33 years of age, fairly old for getting engaged in those days, given the average age of marriage at the time was early 20s (not judging, just stating a fact) She didn't end up marrying the alliteratively named Keith Kenneth McKenzie (or anyone for that matter) There is a Keith Kenneth McKenzie in the Electoral  Roll at 48 Docker Street, Richmond from 1928 to 1937 - occupation Railway employee - and also at the address is a Kenneth McKenzie (occupation Engine driver) - so is this Him? Possibly - but by 1930 Enid and Vera were living in Sydney, so how did they meet? Why was the engagement called off? Don't know and Table Talk does not tell me.

Table Talk July 28, 1932


Monday, October 15, 2018

What did Carlo wear?

What did Carlo wear on a daily basis? Let the Beechworth newspaper, The Ovens and Murray Advertiser, tell us. They printed an article in the April 7, 1915 edition with the heading Our Melbourne Letter, sub-heading Marked Personalities. The Marked personality that they wrote about was Carlo Catani. They start by telling us about his employment and then continue on with this

When there is anything to be done which concerned the Public Works Department the short, natty figure of Mr Catani is sure to appear some time during its stages. In age he is somewhere in the middle fifties. His hair is greying, and his dark bushy eyebrows are getting slightly bushier. But he is the same alert Italian that he was when he came to Victoria a young man in the seventies. His friends say that his hair may change in colour, but his clothes never for he seems to be wearing the same sac suit of navy serge he wore years ago. He is a busy man, and a public servant must be devoted to his work. There is a story by his friends that when Mr Catani thinks his suit needs changing he puts his head in at  his tailors and says 'Another of the same' and in due time another of the same comes home. 
The article continues with an account of his arrival in Australia and his various achievements. You can read it here.

On the right is a photo of Carlo from The Australasian of February 8, 1908* of Carlo - a rare and clear image of him standing up - is he wearing a 'sac suit of navy serge'?


So that is what Carlo wore - a 'sac suit of navy serge'. What is a sac suit? There is a description and illustration here in this blog, Mens Clothing line in 1888
https://mensfashionin1888.weebly.com/ Apparently the sac suit was worn from the mid 1880s until the early part of the 20th century, so it seems that Carlo kept to the style that he liked, rather than be a fashionista. Serge, as a matter of interest, is a type of material with an even sided twill weave, similar to garbadine.

This illustration here is of a Scottish Tweed sac suit, advertised in the Sydney Stock and Station Journal on May 31, 1910. It cost 35 shillings. It was described as 'well cut with nothing extreme about it' and I feel that this description would most likely apply to Carlo's navy serge sac suits. Carlo's suit coat in the photo, above, looks a little different from the one on the left, as the suit coat appears to be more cut away.

*The photo from The Australasian of February 8, 1908 can be found here. I am grateful to my friend and fellow Carlo aficionado, Isaac Hermann, for finding this photo for me.


Saturday, October 13, 2018

Koo Wee Rup Swamp Drainage history

Being born and bred on the Koo Wee Rup Swamp, I feel I always knew about Carlo as he was one of the Public Works Department engineers that worked on the drainage scheme and the town of Catani is right next door to Cora Lynn, where I grew up. This is the extended version of my history of the drainage of the Koo Wee Rup Swamp. If, by some extraordinary chance, you are not as enamoured by the history of Koo Wee Rup Swamp drainage as I am, then you can read the short version of this history on one of my other blogs, here.

I must acknowledge the books  From Swampland to Farmland: a history of the Koo Wee Rup Flood Protection District by David Roberts (Rural Water Commission, 1985)  and the chapter Draining the Swamp in The Good Country: Cranbourne Shire by Niel Gunson (F.W. Cheshire, 1968) in the preparation of this history. 


The Koo Wee Rup Swamp originally covered about 96, 000 acres (40,000 hectares) is part of the Western Port sunkland. Very non-scientifically, the land sunk thousands of years ago between the Heath Hill fault and the Tyabb fault, and the streams that originally drained straight to the sea, such as the Cardinia, Toomuc, Deep Creek, Ararat, Bunyip and Lang Lang now descended onto the flat sections of the sunkland, flowed out over the land and created the swamp conditions.

Small scale drainage projects on the Swamp began as early as 1857 when William Lyall (1821 - 1888) began draining parts of the Yallock Station to drain the excess water from the Yallock Creek. In 1867, Lyall and Archibald McMillan, owner of Caldermeade, funded a drain through the Tobin Yallock Swamp and created a drain to give the Lang Lang River a direct outlet to the sea. Lyall also created drainage around Harewood house (on the South Gippsland Highway Koo Wee Rup and Tooradin).

In 1875, landowners including Duncan MacGregor (1835 - 1916), who owned Dalmore, a property of over 3,800 acres (1,500 hectares) formed the Koo Wee Rup Swamp Drainage Committee. From 1876 this Committee employed over 100 men and created drains that would carry the water from the Cardinia and Toomuc Creeks to Western Port Bay at Moody’s Inlet. The Cardinia Creek outlet was eight metres at the surface, six metres at the base and 1.2 metres deep, so no mean feat as it was all done manually. You can still see these drains when you travel on Manks Road, between Lea Road and Rices Road - the five bridges you cross span the Cardinia and Toomuc Creek canals (plus a few catch drains)

It soon became apparent that drainage works needed to be carried out on a large scale if the Swamp was to be drained and landowners protected from floods. The construction of the Railways also provided a push to drain the Swamp. The Gippsland railway line, which straddled the northern part of the Swamp, was completed from Melbourne to Sale in 1879. The construction of the Great Southern Railway line through the Swamp and South Gippsland, to Port Albert, began in 1887. These lines, plus a general demand for farm land bought the Government into the picture.

The Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, William Thwaites (1853 - 1907) is almost forgotten in Swamp history, and should get more credit than he does. Thwaites surveyed the Swamp in 1887 and his report recommended the construction of the Bunyip Main Drain from where it entered the Swamp, in the north, to Western Port Bay and a number of smaller side drains.


 This is the Main Drain (Bunyip River) - a 1940s postcard. That would be the road bridge at the front and the rail bridge at the back

There was a scientific background to this scheme - Lewis Ronald East, engineer with  and later Chairman of  the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission (SRWSC) , published a paper called Swamp Reclamation in Victoria in 1935. East writes that the drainage plan was based on the formula Q=CM3/4 - where Q was the discharge in cusecs, C a coefficient and M the area of the area of the catchment in square miles. 50 was adopted as the value of C for ordinary floods and 100 for extraordinary floods. The Scheme was worked out in detail to deal with ordinary floods, but for some unaccountable reason - possibly shortage of funds - it was recommended that the drains be constructed in the first instance to only 1/3 of the designed dimensions, but the reserves were to be of sufficient width to allow future enlargement. East says that the intention of the “Swamp Board” was to merely facilitate the removal flood waters and thus permit the use of land between floods.

A tender for works was advertised in 1889. In spite of strikes, floods and bad weather by March, 1893, the private contractors had constructed the 16 miles of the drain from the Bay to the south of Bunyip and the Public Works Department considered the Swamp was now dry enough for settlement. At one time over 500 men were employed and all the work was done by hand, using axes, shovels, mattocks and wheel barrows.

In spite of what seemed to be good progress - the Public Works Department had been unhappy with the rate of progress and took over its completion in 1893 and appointed our friend, Carlo Catani.

The 1890s was a time of economic depression in Australia and various Government Schemes were implemented to provide employment and to stop the drift of the unemployed to the city. One of these schemes was the Village Settlement Scheme. The aim was for the settlers to find employment outside the city and to boost their income from the sale of produce from their farms. It was in this context that Catani implemented the Village Settlement Scheme on the swamp. Under this Scheme, all workers had to be married, accept up to a 20 acre (8 hectares) block and spend a fortnight working on the drains for wages and a fortnight improving their block and maintaining adjoining drains. The villages were Koo Wee Rup, Five Mile, Vervale, Iona and Yallock.  The first 103 blocks under this scheme were allocated in April 1893.

Many of the settlers were unused to farming and hard physical labour, others were deterred by floods and ironically a drought that caused a bushfire. Many also relied on the wages they received for working on the drains, however this work finished in November 1897, so unless they could find other employment, or their farm was enormously successful they chose (or were forced by circumstance) to leave the Swamp.  The Village Settlement Scheme on the Swamp was abandoned in 1899 and the land was opened for selection in the regular way.

My great grandfather, James Rouse, a widower, arrived on the Swamp with his nine year old son Joe, in 1903. James, who had been a market gardener in England, was part of a second wave of settlers who were granted land as they had previous farming experience.  By 1904, over 2,000 people including 1,400 children lived on the Swamp. By the 1920s, the area was producing one quarter of Victorian potatoes and was also a major producer of dairy products. In fact, as we know, Koo Wee Rup remains an important potato growing area and the importance of the potato was celebrated by the Annual Potato Festival during the 1970s and 1980s. Today, 93% of all Australian asparagus is produced on the Koo Wee Rup Swamp.

The existing drainage works that we see on the Swamp today are really the result of a reaction to various floods. As East wrote in 1935 it was soon evident that the drainage provision made was quite inadequate.  There was a flood in 1893 and according to East the drains were enlarged by at least 50% in 1895 and then enlarged again in 1902, the catalyst being the 1901 flood.  The 1902 work had the objective to remove all floodwaters from a maximum flood within three days

There were some additional drains created in 1911 and by 1912 East says that the drainage scheme had cost £234,000 and the Government had recouped only £188,000. There were arguments over who should fund the scheme - many land owners were opposed to being charged for any work and it was not until after more floods in 1916 and 1917 they agreed in principle to an annual flood protection charge and the ‘Lower Koo Wee Rup flood protection district’ came into being. 

The State Rivers scheme provided for substantial remodelling and enlargement of existing drains, new channels and additional drains next to the Main Drain to take the water from the converging side drains. Other work carried out at this time included giving the Lang Lang River a straight channel to the bay and at the western end of Swamp tapping the Deep Creek into the Toomuc Drain created in 1876. 

Before I go on to the devastating 1934 flood I am going to tell you about the LubeckerSteam dredge. Apparently Catani was interested in using machines on the Swamp in the 1890, but as this was a time of depression the Public Works Department felt that this would take away jobs so it wasn’t until 1913 that Catani could import his first dredge. It was the Lubecker Bucket Dredge, costing £4,716 which arrived in 1913 and started work on the Lang Lang River. When it finished there in 1916 it started on the Koo Wee Rup Swamp on the Main Drain, Cardinia Creek and the Yallock Drain. It weighed 80 tons and had a capacity of 80 cubic metres per hour. A labourer at the time dug about 8 cubic metres per day. It had nearly completed its useful life in 1935 when East wrote his report. 

 The now demolished Memorial Hall at Koo Wee Rup in the 1934 flood
Koo Wee Rup Swamp Historical Society photo

None of the existing works could prepare the swamp for the 1934 flood. In October of that year, Koo Wee Rup received over twice its average rain fall. November also had well above average rainfall and heavy rain fell on December 1 across the State. This rainfall caused a flood of over 100,000 megalitres or 40,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) per day. This was only an estimate because all the gauges were washed away. The entire Swamp was inundated; water was over 6 feet (2 metres) deep in the town of Koo Wee Rup, exacerbated by the fact that the railway embankment held the water in the town; my grandparents house at Cora Lynn had 3½ feet of water through it and according to family legend they spent three days in the roof with a nine, five, three year old and my father who was one at the time. Over a thousand people were left homeless. This flood also affected other parts of the State, including Melbourne.

There was outrage after the 1934 flood, directed at the SRWSC and it was even worse when another flood, of about 25,000 megalitres (10,000 cusecs) hit in April, 1935. After this flood, 100 men were employed to enlarge the drains.

As a result of the 1934 flood, the SRWC worked on new drainage plans for the Swamp and these plans became known as the Lupson Report after the complier, E.J Lupson, an Engineer. A Royal Commission was also established in 1936. Its role was to investigate the operation of the SRWSC. The Royal Commission report was critical of the SRWSC’s operation in the Koo Wee Rup Flood Protection District in a number of areas.  It ordered that new plans for drainage improvements needed to be established and presented to an independent authority. Mr E. G Richie was appointed as the independent authority. The Richie Report essentially considered that the Lupson Report was ‘sound and well considered’ and should be implemented. Work had just begun on these recommendations when the 1937 flood hit the area. The 1937 flood hit Koo Wee Rup on October 18  and water was two feet (60cm) deep in Rossiter Road and Station Street. The flood peaked at 20,000 cusecs (50,000 megalitres) about half the 1934 flood volume.

The main recommendation of the Lupson / Ritchie report was the construction of the Yallock outfall drain from Cora Lynn, cutting across to Bayles and then essentially following the line of the existing Yallock Creek to Western Port Bay. The aim was to take any flood water directly to the sea so the Main Drain could cope with the remaining water. The Yallock outfall drain was started in 1939 but the works were put on hold during World War Two and not completed until 1956-57. The Yallock outfall drain had been originally designed using the existing farm land as a spillway ie the Main Drain would overflow onto existing farmland and then find its own way to the Yallock outfall drain. Local farmers were unhappy at this, as the total designated spillway area was 275 acres (110 hectares). They suggested a spillway or ford be constructed at Cora Lynn so the flood water would divert to the outfall drain over the spillway. The spillway was finally constructed in 1962.

There is on-going work on the Main Drain all the time - recreation of levee banks, removal of vegetation etc but the opening of the spillway was basically the last major engineering works to happen on the Swamp.

Today we look at Swamps as wetlands, worthy of preservation, but we need to look at the drainage of the Swamp in the context of the times. Koo Wee Rup was only one of many swamps drained around this time; others include the Carrum Swamp and the Moe Swamp. To the people at the time the drainage works were an example of Victorian engineering skills and turned what was perceived as useless land into productive land and removed a barrier to the development of other areas in Gippsland.



Construction of the Spillway at Cora Lynn, October 1962 - the Main Drain is on the right, separated by a soon to be removed levee bank from the spillway which is ironically underwater, due to a flood. Photo: Rouse family collection

Friday, October 12, 2018

Carlo and the safety of the Patterson River bridge

In the Colony of Victoria, until 1884 all the military or defences forces were volunteers. This changed in 1884 with the introduction of the Victorian Military Forces. These men were paid, enlisted for a fixed period but were part time. Every so often they would attend training camps at various locations including the Langwarrin Military Reserve.  In 1894, this encampment lasted six days.

I came across this article, below, about the 1894 encampment - new field guns had to be transported to Langwarrin and had to cross the bridge on the Patterson River at Carrum. There were clearly worries about the strength of the bridge which might have caused a disastrous prelude to the Easter encampment if it was not strong enough to bear the weight of the guns and so Mr Davidson, the Inspector General of Public Works and Mr Catani, engineer of roads and bridges inspected the bridge. They recommended that the guns might be transported across the bridge in safety but that there was an undoubted risk and they would not take responsibility of advising that the route was safe one. This sounds like a typical public service report - a bit of  a bet each way - so credit could be taken if it was a success and no responsibility would be taken if it ended badly. In the end it was decided that the guns would be transported one at a time over the bridge and there was no disastrous prelude to the Easter encampment and Carlo's professional reputation remained intact!

The Argus March 24 1894

If you are interested in the Langwarrin Military Reserve then you might want to read Australia Aldershot: Langwarrin Military Reserve Victoria 1886-1980 by Winty Calder (Jimaringle Publications 1987)