THE SEACLIFF INQUIRY.

Evening Star, Issue 7447, 16 February 1888, Page 1

THE SEACLIFF INQUIRY.

Ihe following concludes our report of Mr Blair's evidence:—He passed next to extracts from Mr Brindley's letters to Mr Lawson* One was in reference to the stone packing in the concrete. The specification was that stone packing might be used in the concrete with the inspector's approval; and Mr Brindley wrote to Mr Lawson, inquiring what proportion of stone he considered fair. He wrote under date December 13, 1881: "Seeing.that there is a question of the foundation of the north wings not being right, would it not be as well to do away with the packing altogether ?" The letter went on to say: "My way of it is the stone not to be less than Ift or 18iu apart according to size, and concrete put in lifts of Ift high at a time. Unless lam to stand by and see every stone go in I am afraid there will be more go in than is good for the stability oi the building, and should it come to an examination I am afraid Mr Gore would be the loser, as there would be no help for it but to have it taken out." It was clear the architect did not stand by the inspector on this occasion, and Mr Brindley again wrote with reference to the stone packing on August 1, 1882, showing that Mr Gore insisted on putting in the stone from 4in to 6in apart, and that he disregarded Mr Brindley's instructions in the matter. Mr Brindley on this account only certified provisionally to the work, and said the concrete lately put in could bear no comparison with the north wing. If the concrete here in the south wing was inferior to that which the

Commissioners had seen in the extreme north wing it must b3 very extraordinary material. Again, in October, 1882, Mr Brindley wrote to Mr Lawson protesting against the way Mr Gore instructed his workmen to put stone packing in concrete. The latter insisted on the stone being put about three or four inches apart, and on the man patting in concrete in trenches—presumably without framing. As it was impossible to be at different parts of the work where the concrete was being put in during the whole day, Mr Brindley said he Bhould refuse to pass any more concrete put in by the aforesaid man and in the manner described. The letter continued: " I called attention to the matter not being satisfactory, and requested Mr Gore's manager to remove the man. This

he refused to do, as it seems he has not power to do so, and also questions my right to require such dismissal. It is not the first time he has tried to scamp work. As concrete still continues to be put in, I have to take this course to protect myself, and also ask you to stop payment out of the last certificates until such time as the matter is settled. At present it seems from Mr Gore's manner he is neither bound by time, general conditions, details, or instructions; as he, as you know, questions every detail, and considers himself the right person to judge re materials and workmanship, details, etc., and tries to ignore any instructions I may give." Mr Brindley felt so strongly over the matter that he sent an unofficial note to Mr Ussher, saying: "I enclose press copy of letter sent this day to Mr Lawson. In the event of his not seeing this matter satisfactorily settled, I shall have to ask you to take the matter up, as, literally, Mr Gore repudiates my

authority altogether, and as the works are a long way from completion the sooner Mr Gore is brought to his senses the better. There are only two courses open to me, either to give up my office or not pass the work. I have chosen the latter." Although Mr Brindley wrote to strongly to Mr Lawson on October 5 he did not receive an immediate reply. Apparently the speaker (Mr Blair) was not the only one guilty of not answering letters. On October 28 Mr Brindley asked for an answer to three letters, and seemed to have received from Mr Lawson a request to work amicably with the contractor. Mr Brindley said in reply: "I try to do so, but certainly think, as inspector, I am not supposed to pass work not done according to your instructions or my directions (as before-mentioned concrete is not). Also, it is about time some

extreme measure was taken, when the contractor or his manager repudiates my instructions, as in the present case, and withholding the certificates is the only way to protect myself." Mr Brindley evidently thought that the instructions to work amicably with the contractor implied passing bad work. In the same letter he said: " I have not certified for about 40yd» of concrete put in" during the early part of the month, not being satisfied with the manner of its being put in and the amount of stone packing." The speaker then went on to read a memoran* dum from Mr O'Conor, Under-Seoretary of. Public Works, in which he stated that when passing the building he noticed that the foundation work was put in in a manner that seemed iii be of a most slovenly and unworkmanlike character. As the work was entirely'in Mr Lawson'a charge he made no comment to any

of his subordinates, but remarked to Mr TJssher that if that sort of work would do for the foundations of a lar<rc building he (Mr O'Conor) must have U <>n wasting peoples money all his life. Mr Ussher won d give evidence that Mr Brindley told him that the contractor tipped barrowloads of dirty boulders from the excavation behind the building into the trecches in lieu of the materials specified; that the architect's attention was drawn to the fact, but that the inspector received no satisfaction from him. The Commission had also seen that, although the contract required the concrete to bo put in in boxes or cases, there were only three or four places in -which there -was any appearance of casings having been used; and the foundation had been laid bare at nearly forty places. There was a considerable amount of heart-burning over the question of the bricks used. Writing to Mr Lawson on September 4, 1882, Mr Brindley said -inter alia: "About 5,000 or so of very bad bricks have been run out of the last two kilns, and having mixed with the rest it is impossible to pick them out. The best of the kilns are but just passable, being rather shaky. I see no other course but to condemn the lot. On the next day Mr Brindley again wrote : "On getting further into the stack the bricks are even worse, some of them having scarcely seen fire at all. Out of a day's work about 500 or 600 have been picked out. I must in justice to the work condemn the lot, which I shull do tomorrow if Ido not hear from you." Mr O'Conor also refers to the question of bricks, saying "Mr Uesher and myself then came to a stack of bricks, and from force of habit or curiosity I picked up two of these and struck them together, and was astonished to find that instead of giving a clear, sharp ring, as they should have done, they gave out a dull, sullen thud, indicating either that the clay was bad or else that the bricks were badly burnt." Mr O'Conor, in a memo., also referred to beams that were too weak; but, as that matter was rectified, it was unnecessary to enlarge on it. From Mr Brindley's correspondence it appeared that there were other matters in the way of deftctive materials in regard to which the contractor practically placed the inspector at defiance, and he (Mr Blair) could find no record of the inspector having been backed up by the architect. On May 23, 188:5, Mr Brindley wrote to Mr Lawson callin? attention to the thickness of the gable wall at the end of the block 2 south, waying that Mr Gore insisted on this being an extra, and had built it Oin thick. As all the roof and gables were 1-lin thick there was no reason why this should not be of the same thickness. Mr Brindley continued, in his letter to Mr Lawson : "It is very annoying to have to make so many complaints, but it seems as if the same game was to be tried as some months back ; that is, ignore my instructions and do work for you but not for me, even though from your instructions. As I will not have this, and consider the only way to bring Mr Gore to his senses is to touch him in the pocket, I shall refuse to pass certificate for brick work of this block next month. It is just a trick to get out of four and a half inches of wall." A further question then arose with reference to cement, Mr Brindley complaining that Mr Gore was using Brook's and Stonebridge and Co.'s, whereas the only brands specified were White's or Knight Bevan's. During Mr Brindley's absence about a hundred casks of these unapproved brands were delivered at the workd, and a start made on the foundations. Mr Brindley gave notice to stop using any more, and took that stand to protect himself, as it seemed to bo the starting point of Mr Gore's sending up further unapproved material, and would also give an opening for any rubbish being sent up. In conclusion, he (Mr Blair) contended that the evidence he would lead would support these positions: 1. That all the building operations weie absolutely under the control of Mr Lawson, as architect, and that the inspector of works was absolutely and entirely under his control and direction.

2. That all the drains required by Mr Lawson were put in, and very many more besides, and that they have had little or no effect in stopping the damage to the buildirg. 3. That the damage to the building is not in consequence of a general movement of the hillside toward* the sea or from the slips that occurred in the neighborhood, but was due to a regular settlement in soft ground. 4. That, instead of being widened over the Roft ground, the foundations were actually reduced to a very serious extent, thereby increasing the risk of settlement and damage. fj. That the foundations throughout the damaged portions of the building are all defective, that they are much smaller than shown in the contract, and that the work and material are both faulty in the extreme.

Several witnesses were then examined in support of Mr Blair's statement, the principal being Mr Ussher, of the Public Works Department, and Mr P. S. Hay.