FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1875.

Press, Volume XXIII, Issue 3059, 11 June 1875, Page 2

FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1875.

The report of the Royal Commission on the Eakaia Bridge was laid on the table of the Provincial Council yesterday evening. We publish it in another column, and commend it to the attention of our readers. It is a somewhat expensive document, the cost of the Commission having amounted to about £700 ; still they may perhaps think it is worth the money. It tells them several things which they are much interested in knowing. They will learn from it - how public works are carried on in Canterbury; in what a spirit of accommodation to contractors the supervision of such works is conducted by the Provincial Engineer ; and what are the consequences to the Provincial Treasury. The first contract for the Eakaia bridge was made between the Superintendent of Canterbury and Mr W. White on the 7th October, 1869; and a eecond contract, for the conversion of the bridge into a combined road and railway bridge, wbb made on the 29th August, 1871. The second contract included the first, and the General, as well as the Provincial Governments, were to some extent concerned in it. The plans were approved by Mr Blackett, Acting Engineer in Chief, and by the Provincial Engineer, Mr G. Thornton, on behalf of their respective Governments. Mr Bray was appointed Engineer for the General Government, and Mr Thornton (to whom the supervision of the works was entrusted) ac Provincial Engineer. No arrangement was made as to the powers to be exercised by the General Government Engineer. But there seems to have been an understanding that, as the cost of the bridge was to be ultimately defrayed by the General Government, their engineer should so far have control that his consent should be necessary to any alteration. So much for the preliminary facts. We now come to the actual carrying out of the contract, as to which the report may be divided into three parts. The first treats of the design ; the eecond of the practical work of construction ; the tbird, of the payments made to the contractor as compared with the work done. We will follow the report through them in succession. First as to the design. Mr Bray, as we have said, was appointed Eugineer to the General Government when the contract was made in August, 1871. But iv May, iS72, Mr Bray retired from the service of the General Government, and was succeeded by Mr T. S. Tancred, who in his turn left office in the following November. Thus in little more than fourteen months there were three several engineers; while, to add to the confusion, Mr Locke, the Clerk of the Works appointed by the Provincial Government, resigned through illhealth in November, 1872, and for four months no successor was appointed. Amid these changes the contractor eeeme to have been allowed to do pretty much as he liked. Mr Locke's resignation coinciding with the retirement of Mr Tancred left him practically free from supervision, and of this freedom he took the fullest advantage. He completed the whole superstructure " in a " mode entirely at variance with the " contract designs." The plan of the bridge, -as built, is Mr White's own. It has not received the sanction of any of the engineers,and "differs radically," both in the way of omissions and alterations, from any that had been approved of. But what, our readers will aek, was the Provincial Engineer about? Be wae the officer in charge

of the work, and he at all events remained at hie post. Did he not know of these repeated breaches of the contract ? And if he knew of them, howcame he to permit them ? The question is a very natural one, and the report enables us.to answer it. Mr Thornton was aware of what was done, but did not feel called on to interfere. The contractor assured him that the alterations did not signify, and with that assurance he was perfectly satis fied. He was " content to accept Mr " White's word as to the mode in " which the bridge was to be con- " etructed." So much for the design. The next point is the manner in which the contract has been performed. The report states that only one deviation from the original plan was ever authorised, | and that this one was never carried out. But unauthorised deviations were made to any extent. According to the contract the bridge was to have been built with cross joists supporting longitudinal planking, all of a specified size, the planking to consist of totara, black pine, or sugar-loaf pine. But as the bridge was constructed the cr "ss joists were altogether omitted, and the planking laid on the road and girders, while outside the rails the planking is of white pine—" in a very perislrng " condition." These cross joists were equal to 103,488 feet of timber, the whole of which was omitted by the contractor, as far as could be learnt from evidence, " without any authority " whatever." Mr Tancred appearo to have seen the planking before it was laid, and to have pronounced it " not " good at all ;" but did not object to it because he was informed by Mr White that it was used with the consent of the Provincial Government. But the Commissioners find no evidence of such consent; and they point out that the material so used was in direct breach of the contract specifications. Mr Thornton, in a report to the Secretary for Public Works, dated March 10th, 1873, represented the planking as generally good. The Commissioners, on the other hand, report that the weight of evidence was directly the opposite, and that the bad condition of the planking at the time it was laid down was the common talk of the whole country side. Some of it was already four years old, and had been used for scaffolding; so that since, according to Mr White's evidence, white pine only lasts for five years, it must have been pretty well worn out. The fact seems to be that Mr White had a quantity of old material on hand, and that, by laying his planks across instead of lengthways, he was able to make use of it, and so cave the cost of providing the new timber, which would h&ve been requisite had he adhered to the contract. In order to effect this saving he took on himself to alter the whole design for the flooring of the bridge. The Engineer made no objection. Mr Thornton, as usual, was content to accept Mr White's word as to the way in which the bridge should be constructed. Another fault was that the planks were not properly secured by spikes at the butts. This was why the asphalte gave way. The Commissioners say that the asphalte was well laid, but that it could not stand the traffic on account of the insecurity of the planks which formed the foundation. With regard to payments, it appears that the total sums paid amount to £36,196 15s 7d ; of which £32,464 was paid on account of the two original contracts with Mr White. The payments were authorised by the Engineer or other duly qualified officer. But the Commissioners report that there has been great waste, and that, in addition, the contractor has been materially overpaid. In August, 1873, when Mr Thornton certified to the completion of the work, items were still missing to the value of £2599 L6s 4d. Mr Thornton deniee this, and even asserts that the contractor has been out of pocket by hie alterations in the design. But his only authority for the assertion is that Mr White says so. His comparative statement is not considered by the Commissioners to be of much value, " as it was made up from " data eupplied by the contractor." The Commissioners' estimate is derived from two independent statements by Mr Bray and by the General Government Engineer now in charge of the district. On the whole there appear to have been wasted or overpaid on the bridge sums amounting —inclusive of the £2599 16s 4d mentioned above— to £6937 8s 6d. We suppose that as much more will be required to make it fit for its purpose. The report on the general condition of the bridge is to the effect that (with an expenditure of about £250 to supply some missing beams, &c), it is a strong railway bridge, but that it will need entire replanking to make it fit for cart traffic. The asphalte, the laying of which cost £1400, has completely broken up. The Commissioners distribute the blame pretty freely among the Engineers. The whole conduct of the District Engineers in connection with the Eakaia Bridge is said to have been " of the loosest description." They came and went without troubling themselves to ascertain what the state of affairs was with regard to the bridge, or on what plan it was being constructed. Mr O'Connor passed it without having before him any authorised plan whatever. Mr O'Connor is also declared partly responsible for sundry unnecessary expenses, and chiefly responsible, through his neglect in not inspecting the flooring, for the failure of the asphalte. But it is on the Provincial Engineer that the weight of the Commissioners' censure falls. He is the chief offender. Others may be in fault in this or that particular, he is the man " to whom blame attaches all through." It is impossible not to agree with this conclusion. Mr Thornton wae in charge of the bridge from first to last. It was his special businees to keep a vigilant watch over the execution of the contract, to detect any deviations, and to insist on its being fulfilled to the letter. But he never made the eligateit attempt to do hie

duty. Instead of superintending the contractor, he played into his hands throughout. He allowed him to depart from the authorised design at pleasure. He allowed him to scamp his work. He certified work without examination. Hβ accepted the contractor's statements as the basis for his reports. The result is that, on a contract taken at £32,464. the province has already paid nearly £7000 too much, while alarge portion of the work is good for nothing, and has to be done over again. For all this waste of money the province is indebted to Mr Thornton. He may be a valuable officer—he is undoubtedly an expensive one; whether his services are worth their cost we leave the Provincial Government or the Provincial Council to determine.