LYTTELTON SRA-WALL.

Press, Volume XI, Issue 1303, 10 January 1867, Page 2

LYTTELTON SRA-WALL.

On the motion of Mr Habgbbaye3, the House went into committee to consider the report of the Select Committee on the Lyttelton sea-wall. Mr Habgbeaves said that the question the House had before them was one of importance, involving as it did a large amount j of the public property, as well as the fitness J or unfitness of a public officer for the j work. The report of the committee contained extracts from the evidence of the several persons examined, but hon. members who read that report would notice that the committee had coma to no conclusion on the matter. Therefore he thought it behoved the House, inasmuch as the committee had been appointed for the purpose of enquiring into the defects in the work, whether on the part of the contractor or on that of the engineer, to ascertain with whom the fault lay, and to come to some definite conclusion. If the fault lay with the contractor, the House would give it* verdict accordingly; and if the officer of the Government was to blame, he did not see how they could act otherwise than return a verdict against him. The evidence was very voluminous, and he believed that many hon. members had not made themselves acquainted with its contents. He therefore thought the best way would be to have it read by the Clerk of the House. [Hear, hear.] He felt perfectly satisfied that any hon. member who had seen the work to which the report referred could be otherwise than dissatisfied. In consequence of the manner in which it had developed itself, it went now under the name of the "sea-serpent." [Laughter.] He thought it a very appropriate name, for it resembled that more than a sea-wall. [Renewed laughter.] He would move that the evidence be read, both for the benefit of the House as well as for that of the public. The Provincial Secretary objected to the evidence being read, as on account of the length to which it extended it would take up so much of the time of the House. He appealed to hon. members whether they could form an opinion from the evidence only read over once. Mr WYiiDB said that the evidence had been on the table for several days, and if hon. members had not read it before it was their own fault. He did not think the business of the House should be delayed. Mr Haegbbaves would not press his motion on account of the large amount of business before the Council. He should move, for the purpose of creating discussion—" That this committee having had before it the evidence of the Select Committee on the sea-wall contract, is of opinion that the design of the work is unsuitable for the site, and that proper borings should have been taken by the Provincial Engineer previous to tenders for the work being invited. The committee is also of opinion that before any further works are undertaken by the Government to secure the present structure, competent engineering advice should be obtained, for the purpose of ascertaining the proper borings for this work." The Secretaby for Public Works said that the Government were entirely opposed to the resolutions. The report was based more on the evidence of the contractor than on that of the Provincial Engineer, and the Government had been advised by the latter that the contractor bad not carried out his contract according to specifications, so that they had a fair claim on him for a certain amount of money. If the committee adopted the resolutions they would evidently be endorsing the views of the contractor against the engineer. This would be inconsistent on the part ol the committee, for in another large work the House would be supporting the engineer against the contractor. [Mr Sheath — "Name."] There was no necessity for naming it, as it was obvious to hon. members ; he meant the Great Southern Railway. He contended that they were not sufficiently well acquainted with engineering work to decide between the contractor and engineer. If they agreed to the resolutions, they would be taking the part of the contractor, and saying he was right and the engineer wrong. Mr Moore maintained that notice should have been given of so important a resolution. He was taken unawares, and could not then, with the knowledge he had of the matter, support the motion. Mr Montgomery thought that the hon. mover of the resolutions should have given the committee his reasons for arriving at the conclusion embodied in the resolutions. He should have read extracts from the evidence in support, as he (Mr Montgomery), as well as other hon. members, could not be expected to be so well up in the evidence as the hon. member was. He (Mr Montgomery) could not support the resolutions without good reasons being adduced by the hon. member, as 1 the evidence had not been read. Major Hobnbrook, to a certain extent, agreed with the hon. the mover of the resolutions, and he thought if the Government adopted a suggestion of his, a great deal of the difficulty would be obviated. A very competent and skilful engineer, he believed, engaged with the Wellington Provincial Government on the patent slip being erected there, and who stood very high in his profession in England, was now in the colony, and he thought the Government ought to invite him to come down in order to get from him an impartial judgment as to the question in dispute between the contractor and engineer. It was not for them to judge between the two parties. The Government he believed would as a matter of course support their officer, who had unfortunately made such blunders, and he himself believed if they adopted his suggestion the matter would be put beyond dispute in no time. Mr Wylde said that the hon. member who had last spoken suggested that some gentleman, whose name he did not mention, and who he supposed to be a person of great standing at home, should be employed to examine the work in question. He certainly thought il would be most desirable that some engineer of known and recognised talent should be so employed, bat it would be better before they came to a decision that the hon. member should name the gentleman to whom he referred. Major Hobnbrook said that the person to whom he alluded had come out from England to investigate the work being constructed in Wellington. There was no doubt he would not have been sent out if his abilities had not been duly recognised. Mr Wylde said the hon. gentleman knew nothing of what he was talking about. His suggestions were based on nothing. Major Hobnbrook—l beg to say my suggestions are based on better grounds than yours at all events. My information is derived from good authority in Wellington. He said he certainly could not recollect his name. It might be Brown, Jones, or Robinson; but it did not affect the matter what name the gentleman bore. The Provincial Secbetary thought it a very valuable suggestion indeed that Brown, i Jones, or Robinson should be sent for to '. enquire into the matter in dispute and give an opinion on the sea-wall. [Laughter.] The answer however was not sufficient. There might bo a very great difference between the < abilities of the three genthmen — Messrs j Brown, Jones, and Robinson. Well, the gentleman alluded to was a m«i of standing in i Wellington and a Government officer. [No, ' no ] At any rate he understood that he had i been recommended by the Government. [No, '. no] Would the hon. gentleman then repeat ( what he did say ? < Major Hobnbrook—He was sent out by I the company engaged in constructing the patent slip at Wellington. s The Provincial Secretary did not think i that a sufficient reason to justify the Govern- < ment in asking him to report on the impor- ( tant matter in dispute. With regard to the i report itself, he did not think it entered so i fully into the whole matter as to enable the t Council to decide. He agreed with the hon. i member for Heathcote (Mr Montgomery) that ( they had not sufficient evidence to decide upon who was right or wrong. The | proper consideration of the evidence would take some time. He (Mr Stewart) regarded c the argument brought forward by his hon. 1 colleague, the Secretary for Public Works, as unanswerable. [No, no.] Of course the Gov- 1

ernment would support their own officer as , long as they could in justice and propriety, , but longer than that they would not; and if , they found they could agree with the resolutions, they would not shirk doing so however unpleasant it might be. He would add however that they had not sufficient grounds at . present on which to base such resolutions as | those before the House. Mr Thomson thought the grounds for ' bringing forward the resolution were suffiL cient to the committee at all events. The Resident Engineer stated that be considered, as a professional man, the framing and woodwork had been carried out in accord- ; ance with the specification, and that the timber had been generally very superior, the , piles being driven beyond the figured depth on the drawings. The committee could judge from that that there was no complaint ( against the contractor regarding the execution of the work. The evidence also taken went to show that no borings were taken on ] the precise line of the sea-wall previous to tenders being called for. He would there- ! fore support the resolutions. Mr Habgbeayes said that the Provincial | Engineer in his evidence before the Select Committee stated that the contractor had carried out his work according to specificaj tions. He also acknowledged that it was a disgrace to all concerned in it. The result of the borings which were taken at every fourth , pile, according to the instructions of the engi- , neer after the failure of the work, proved that ' the piles were driven or sunk into soft . mud, of the " consistency of batter, and in- '< capable of supporting great weight." Any hon. member who examined the plan accompany- , ing the report, and which was endorsed by [ the Provincial Engineer, would see that the , piles were not resting on any proper foundai tion whatever, and yet they were two feet longer than required by specification. The Provincial Engineer never for one moment , ignored the fact that the contractor had carried out his work according to specification. His , reason for bringing forward the resolutions was because a large sum of money had beeu expended on the work—something like £25,000 —and it was very questionable whether it would stand in its present state. He understood it was sinking and bulging out every day more and more, and the next south-wester he believed would proclaim its doom. He for one was opposed to any engineer, who had displayed such incapacity, being employed on that or any other work. The question was, whether the contractor had carried out his work, or whether the fault lay with the engineer. The Provincial Secretary hoped his hon. friend would consent to withdraw the resolutions as they stood. He could not see that the Council were in a position to decide off-hand such an important matter. The resolution was a very strong one, and affected not only the character of the Provincial Engineer, but also in a minor degree a former Governmentwhich agreed to the design. He did not think by considering the proceedings which were likely to arise out of the matter, that the House would pass such sweeping resolutions as those before them. Mr Maskell said that the hon. the Provincial Secretary had adduced an argument which in the hon. gentleman's opinion was unanswerable. [Mr Stewart —But not by the hon. member. Laughter.] The argument did not seem to him (Mr Maskell,) unanswerable, but simply childish. It came to this, that if the House supported the engineer in one matter, they were bound to do so ia all matters. From what he (Mr Maskell) had read of the evidence, he found that the evidence of the contractor 33 well as of the Provincial Engineer himself was very damaging to the Provincial Engineer's reputation. The House had a perfect right to inquire very strictly into the manner in which the engineering works of the province bad been carried on. With regard to another remark of the Provincial Secretary, about casting a Blur on a former Government, he (Mr Maskell) thought it a very curious thing that the hon. member on one occasion, when talking of the Great Southern Eailway, should take care to say he was not responsible for the acts of a former Government, and very soon afterwards was found jealously defending that same Govern- I ment- This was merely burking the question and he protested against being treated, in common with other hon. members, as children. The Secretary for Public Works maintained that the arguments he had made use of were to the point, and suitable to the case in question. The Government had no intention of burking the question. The report of the committee was very much made up from the evidence of the contractor, and if they passed the resolutions, the Council would be substantially taking the part of the contractor, and condemmng the engineer. In reply to a question from Mr Maskell, The Secretary tor Public Works said he had not read the whole of it. [Laughter.] Mr Wylde wished to make some personal explanations. When the committee was appointed he wished to have his name withdrawn. He did so because he considered the matter on which they were to make enquiry had better be left in abeyance until the dispute between the Government and the contractor was settled. As he was not permitted to have his name withdrawn, he assisted in taking evidence, and bad formed his opinion upon what was adduced. He regretted he had to do so. With regard to the screw pile jetty he had given the same advice but was overruled. He was bound now to declare the opinion he had come to, and he said most distinctly that the contractor was in no way to blame. [Hear] He declared most emphatically that the whole fault lay in the design. The statement made by the Provincial Engineer to the Government that they had a heavy claim upon the contractor was entirely opposed to the evidence taken by the committee. The fault lay strictly with the Provincial Engineer. While that was the opinion he had come to, he could not however vote for the resolution, as it was couched in terms with which he could not agree. It tied the House down to what—or at any rate the latter part of it —had no meaning. He thought the hon. member should withdraw it, and rest contented with having created discussion on the matter. Mr Buchanan rose, and proceeded to speak on the screw-pile jetty, but was called to order. He could not see how any charge ould be laid against the contractor for the sea-wall, the Provincial Engineer himself declaring in his evidence that he had carried out the contract according to specification. Mr Sheath moved as an amendmentthat the consideration of the report of the sea-wall be deferred until the question of the screw pile jetty is brought before the House. The same engineer was engaged on both, and the same contractor. [No, no.] He had, strange to say, never been able to find the evidence taken before the committee on the sea-wall, and therefore was not acquainted with its details. If the sea-wall was like a seaserpent, who was to blame? He wished to know who had prepared the design. Mr Bbswick —The Engineer prepared it. The hon. member will find it in the evidence. Mr Sheath also wished to know if the Government considered the design a bad one. [Laughter.] The Provincial Secretary—lt is more than I dare say. [Laughter.] The present Government have nothing whatever to do with it. [Cries of " Oh, oh," from Mr MaskclL] I shall ask the protection of the Chairman of Committee from that hon. member. The desiga was sanctioned by the Government of the day. Mr Sheath thought that the Government should act as judge between the engineer and the committee, or they should appoint a competent engineer to decide who was right or wrong. He certainly thought that the manner in which the work was designed, as shown in the plan on the table, was most extraordinary. Some of the piles were driven into the ground, others rested on it, while others again were in mid-water. The Provincial Secretary said that the plan to which the hon. member alluded was got up by the committee on behalf of the contractor [no, no,], and laid ob the table to bias the minds of hon. members. [No, no.] Mr Sheath—But you do not deny it may be correct ?

s The Provincial Secretaby — Anything , may be correct; even the hon. gentleman's f statements. [Laughter.] Mr Wylde protested against the unorr thodox and unconstitutional principles pro- • pounded by the hon. member [Mr Sheath] t as to the relations of the Government to the s House. The Select Committee was not the House, but it certainly was a part of it. The r plan alluded to in the debate had not been got - up by the committee to bias the minds of hon. 3 members, but was a portion of the evidence , brought up by the committee, and was drawn 1 up by the direction and under the superintendence -tendence of the Provincial Engineer. 3 The Provincial Secretary explained that 3 he was not aware that the map had received l the sanction of the engineer. With regard 1 to the piles he might state that they were t never intended to reach the rock, but were ■ simply intended, as far as he could understand, i to act as a framing with a stone backing. He i wished also to point out that the piles which were ) ordered two feet longer than demanded by - this specification, were ordered by direction of the Provincial Engineer. 1 Mr Maskell thought that after the turn the t debate had taken, the Government could do 1 nothing else than accept tho resolutions, m - justice to themselves, to the House, and i to Mr Dobson. After the statements which F had been made, and after the searching mii quiry instituted by the committee, Mr Dob- - son could not possibly hold the confidence of t the Council. [Hear, hear.] He held theret fore that they were bound to make a further - enquiry into the matter, so that it could be . proved whether he was right or wrong. He ■ should certainly support the resolutions. r Mr W. Williams would vote for the j s resolution. From the description given by - the Provincial Secretary of tho manner t in which the piles were driven, he ; thought that the Provincial Engineer had t shown the grossest ignorance that had ever I been shown by any professional man. 5 Mr Wylde thought the hon. the Provincial i Secretary in his good-natured defence of his i officer had done great damage to his reputa- ) tion. [Hear, and laughter.] The House how- [ ever must accept the information as simply j ■ coming from the hon. gentleman himself ' The fault of the engineer was that he had t not taken proper precautions to ascertain the i nature of the bottom. i The Secretary for Public Works said that the engineer had no intention to drive • the piles to the rock. It was simply in- ■ tended that they should be so driven in ■ rows, tied together with 8 framing and backed with stone, as that the whole i could settle down solidly in one mass. s [Great laughter.] The same was done at s Chat Moss by Stephenson. Had the piles s been driven to the rock, the consequence would be, as the Provincial Engineer asserted, that the whole etructure would topple over. Mr Thomson thought that the design of tbe ! engineer, if correctly described by the Qor- , ernment, was the most singular one ever heard of. [Laughter.] He wished to know what i time had been allowed the structure to sink to its proper position. [Laughter.] Mr Wylde wished to know why the engineer therefore took the trouble and went to '. the expense of getting iron shoes on the piles ? Mr Habgeeavbs would withdraw the latter part of the second resolution," for the purpose of ascertaining the proper borings for the work," if the hon. member (Mr Sheath) withdrew his amendment. Permission was granted to withdraw both the words proposed and the amendment. Mr Habgbeates wished to say before the resolution as amended was put, that in the part he had taken in the matter he was not actuated by any personal feelings against the engineer, or of favor towards the contractor. The Speaker thought that while all honor was due to the committee for their labors, he confessed he should be sorry to see the House take upon itself to decide upon the merits of professional work. "Mr Brown said that the question was not to decide between the contractor and engineer. Every kind of evidence bad been taken, and there was no doubt that a large sum of money was spent on the work, and he thought therefore there was no course open to the House but to affirm the resolutions that the Government should obtain other professional assistance before more money was spent. The Speaker said he agreed with that part of the resolutions which affirmed that, but they affirmed more. The resolutions as amended by the striking o ut of the last were then put and declared carried. A division were called for, with the following result: —Ayes, 22; noes, 4. The resolutions as amended were therefore carried. railway and harbor works estimates. The Secretary tor Public Works, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply to consider the above estimates, said he wished to make a few explanations. The total estimated receipts on this account amounted to £363,123 6s sd. The first item hon. members would notice was a sum £86,000, estimated to be received from the two-fifths of land revenue available for this account. The next item was lease of Ferrymead and Christchurch Eailway, including Green Hammerton, £6000. With regard to the Timaru landing service, the Government expected to receive even more than the amount on the estimates. It was put down at £2000. The other items were : proceeds of sale of £50,000 debentures under Lyttelton and Christchurch Railway Loan Ordinance, £45,000; proceeds of sale of £200,000 debentures under Canterbury Loan Ordinance, 1862, £180,000; and balance in favor of account on June 30, 1866, £4.4,123 6s sd; making up the total amount he mentioned. With regard to the estimated expenditure, the first item — charges on loans was of course a fixed sum, and amounted to £26,293 10s. The next was the Lyttelton and Christchurch Eailway, £43,326 13s 3dJ; which included, besides the amount estimated to be paid under contract, the permanent way for Lyttelton station, and which was ordered frona England, and expected to cost £3000. The estimated expenditure on the Great Southern Eailway was £92,968 0s 9d, which comprised the balance due on the whole contract, taking the railway to the south bank of the Selwyn. The sum also included the bridge across that river, as well as the station there also. With regard to the Great Northern Railway, the sum of £12,100 was put down, which included £10,000 for the purchase of land between Christchurch and Kaiapoi, which sum was expected to provide for all the land that would be required. The Government intended going on with the work as soon as possible, when they had the means. The next item was the harbor works, Lyttelton and Timaru, for which the sum of £43,966 Is 10d was Bet down. He might state that with regard to the Lyttelton Harbor Works, it was the opinion of the Provincial Engineer that a very considerable sum ought to be due from the contractor for the sea-wall, and which would make up for a large part of the proposed expenditure, which was set down at £13,097. The proposed expenditure on the screw pile jetty was £7299 Is lOd, on the Timaru landing service, £2500, and a similar sum for the breakwater at the same place. The total expenditure was estimated at £268,68. 5s lOd. He would add no more, but simply say that in committee he should be happy to give any further explanations. In conclusion, he moved the House into # Commjttee of Supply. The motion was carried, and the House went into committee. [We are obliged to withhold the remainder of our report until our next issue.]