DRRES9PONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXI, Issue 311, 21 October 1887, Page 2

DRRES9PONDENCE.

To the Editor of the " Evening Mail."

Sir, — Kindly allow me space to give what should be regarded as a final and satisfactory reply to Mr Mace, who indiscreetly keeps open this truss bridge correspondence. It is not a pleasant duty to sit on a " fellow," however "horrid" he may be, but I must make necessity a virtue and endeavor to perform the task as politely as possible, being fully aware that a considerable compression of gas and squeezing out of shape will result to this otherwise irrepressible, though by no means invulnerable, " authority."

In his last letter Mr Mace has the temerity to re-assert that his deductions are practically correct, in the face of the fact that I had demonstrated that 92 per cent of the statements and figures of his long essay were absolutely and most ridiculously incorrect, to say the least. This is a heavy charge to lay at the feet of a practical man ; but the letters -- his and mine — are still in existence, and can be easily referred to by those who caro to wade through these matters. My effort has knocked the puff out of this insuppressible windbag to a considerable degree, and reduced him to reasonable and comprehensible proportions. He has trimmed his sails to this extent, that he falls back upon a more cautious comparison of the relative cost of the Motupiko and Pigeon Valley bridges, based upon the contract prioes, and now exults in the discovery that the cost of the Motupiko was less by 5s 6d per foot than the Pigeon Valley example. (Mr Mace's first letter worked it out as £1 9s 6d, I think, so he has discounted his own estimate rather heavily.)

But has Mr Mace so intimate an acquaintance with the P.W.D. and their trussed bridges and long spans, and yet is ignorant of the fact that the contract price doea not represent the cost of any work carried out by the P.W.D., nor by a good deal ? P. GM. throws down the gauntlet on the basis of economy, and I readily accept his challenge. It cannot be expected that my opponent will be convinced against his will, but all who can spell the word " candour " will see that the " cost " of a work should mean its aetual cost to the country. Mr Mace, while he wipes his barnacles, will no doubt wonder onoe more where Mr Price gets his information from. The actual cost of the Motupiko bridge was as follows : — £ a. d. Contraot price 3578 5 4 Extras 146 2 5 Inspection, travelling expenses, general supervision, and expenses or head office, &c. . . 410 0 0 Total cost . . . . 4134 7 9 A compound division sum reveals the faot that the Motupiko bridge cost the country no 3s 4d per running foot, and as Mr Mace has calculated the cost of Pigeon Valley at £4 15b what is the position now ? But it behoves me to set Mr Mace an example of candour, and I allow thafc the expenses of inspection, extras, &c, at Piegon Valley, made the total cost £1,760, or £4 19s 5d per running foot. So that after all said and done Mr Akersten's design of Pigeon Valley, in addition to being more ornamental, cost less by 3s lid per foot than the Motupiko Bridge, which, as Mr F. G. Mace boasts, was carried out under the supervision of the P.W.D. I know my vanquished expert will stamp his foot and " contend that the approaches at Motupiko cost more. " He oannot say how much more. But that is a mean way of dodging an argument. Are the approaches not an indispensable part of a bridge ? I can show Mr Mace that the Public Works Department regarded the approaches at Motupiko as highly necessary — very; and my inconsistent friend will r- - member tbat in bhe caBB of Jimmy Lee's bridge he contended that even tho breakwater was part of the design. Never mind bh« notes of exclamation. The idea of appraising a house excepting the plates and studs! or building a chimney without a foundation! or judging t>y the handsomeness of a man's features wit'.uut looking at his proboscis! Fancy a trussed bridge hoist up in the air without approaches ! The approaches no portion of a bridge, eh? You may just as well separate the husk from the nutmeg, aud then say it is not still a spice Does Mr Mace pretend that tbe greater altitude of trussed bridges as a rule does not increase the necessity and proportion of approaches, which like those at the Brightwater bridge are almost inaccessibly steep? Fie on such piecemeal argument. Perhaps Mr Mace would be edified — the public would I am sure — if I were to give a return showing the actuil cost of all the truss bridges in the colony, and the length of each and the cost per running foot, so that he could compare these in point of economy witb those of Mr Akersten's design. But while these things are interesting to me privately, I do not. get my living afc the work if Mr Mace does, and why should I Jiang myself with red tape, or champion the cause ot Mr Akersten because Mr Mace does thafc of the P.W.D.? What I do object is that miy man should go about insinuating right and left that my report of Jemmy Lee's bridge was purchased with a bribe by Mr Akers.en, or that Akersten, Baigent, and Price were in collusion.

To return to the cost of the bridges. If I have shown thafc 92 per cent of Mr Mace's figures and statements and gueßaes are incorrect or false, then he has bailed himself up in this corner. Either he has ootne before the public with false assumptions, or he hns betrayed an amount of ignorance of wbioh any navvy or rough carpenter might well full ashamed. Ib must b.5 admitted, however, that Mr Mace has unwitiiu.ly rendered the public a service, though the P.W.D. may well say, save me from my friends. F. G. M. haß raised the question of economy in bridge construction vory opportunely, with the result that he has given the advocates of retrenchment a patent handle for reform in the P.W.D. a handle of which Major Atkinson will no doubt avail himself first opportunity I And aB for Mr Mace he will have received a salutary lesson ; afc any rate he is not as smart as ho thinks, if he does nofc seo the folly of continuing to advertise his professional abilities in this stupid way. Adieu !-— Yours &c,

David Price,