INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 99, 21 January 1926, Page 7

INQUIRY

COMMISSION APPOINTED

WIDE ORDER OF REFERENCE The Mayor (Mr. C. J. B. Norwood) announced yesterday that Mr. It. vy. Holmes, 1.5.0., M.lnst., C.E., formerly Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Woiks Department, and Mr. F. W. McLean, Hl.lnst., C.E., late Chief Engineer of Bailways, had consented to act as a commission of inquiry into the construction of the Northland tunnel. Jhe Mayor also issued to the Press the order of reference, which defines the scope ot the inquiry. This instructs the commissioners to inquire into the following matteis: — , “1. Is the tunnel considered to be defective in construction in whole or in 1 "2. Should the tunnel be considered defective, in what degree and in what portion is the construction faulty? **3 AV ho is responsible, and m what respect, for the defective construction (if any)? , , . , “1.. Do the original plans prepared by tho engineer’s department conform to all up-to-date engineering practice 10l tunnel const ruction ? “5. Wore tlie plans provided by the engineer’s department strictly adhered to in tho progress of tho work? If not, who was the officer or officers responsible for causing such variation? Did such variation prejudicially affect the stability or safety of the tunnel to the extent of making it dangerous for use, and were all reasonable steps taken to adjust such variations? Did the provision of the supervision arranged by the engineer’s department conform to tlie usual provisions for supervision of such works under ordinary engineering piactied , “(i. It has been suggested that through soakage. owing to wet weather, abnormal pressure was exerted on one side oi tlie tunnel during construction and while yet “green.” Should the commission find this to bo correct they arc requested to find: Should this have been foreseen and provided against? Did the pressujo so exerted affect the tunnel to ail extent that it would make it dangerous for traffic? Would two shifts of workmen have minimised or eliminated the possibility of this error; and it so, did the engineering department exercise reasonable judgnient in not providing two or more shifts of workmen? “7. The original proposal put forth by the engineering department, and authorised by the ratepayers under tho loan schedule of 1920, provided for a tunnel Tho commission is asked to find- Was this change of length justified by the evidence before them and did such change lead to economy front tho transport standpoint or improved grading sufficient to warrant increased expenditure? Who was responsible tor tho alteration of the change involving the increase in length of the tunnel? Were any estimates prepared and placed before the council with sufficient information to warrant the council in authorising the increased expenditure? “8. Does the evidence before the. commission disclose that it was the intention of the council at the tune construction commenced to run • rn , nls through tho tunnel? Should an Order-in-Council have been applied for prior to the commencement of the work, and if so, who was at fault for not causing such Order-in-Council to be applied for The Mavor stated that the question of throwing the inquiry open to the Press had been considered, but as it was likely that there might bo some kind of evidence given that it would bo in no one’s interest to make public, the onus as to whether the Press should be admitted had been left to the Comin issi oners to decide.. They were being given a free hand in the matter.