THE RAILWAY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1125, 22 June 1867, Page 6

THE RAILWAY.

To tho Editor of tho New Zealand Heeald. Sib, —It was only yesterday that I saw"Fairplay's" letter in reply to mine of tho 18th; and I cannot allow the statements contained therein to remain uncontradicted. Mr. Ogilvie's report on tho railway must be taken as authoritative and final. It is backed out too by the evidence of Auckland engineers. Indeed any man professional or otherwise, may see that tho works are from first to last faulty in design, and wholly unfitted for the purpose.

" Fairplay" says, that the blame might fairly be laid on the shoulders of tho Engineor-in-Chief all tho waste and extravagance caused by »rant of professional competency in the construction of the ne provided only that that gentleman had held his present office previously to the work? being contracted for— and " Fairplay " goes on to say that —" this I know was not so." Does "Fairplay" imagine that the public are to be so easily gulled ? If " Fairplay" will refer to the Provincial Council journal 1864 ho will find in appendix A—No 4 that the Engineer-in-Chief was appointed previously to the session of 18B4,which met onthe sth of October of that year. It was as early as tho sth of August 1834 chat tho Superintendent requested the Engineer-in-Chief to cxamiuo the survey of that poltion of the Drury Railway extending from Auckland to Newmarket. Tho Engineer mado his report on the 7th of October 1864 seo appondix A—No. 3 of same Council papers. Tho fact is therefore clearly established that the En-gineer-in-Chief was employed in supervising the plans of tho works of the Auckland and Drury Kailway as early as August 1864. I will now show when tho contraci3 wore entered into. A reference to tho Provincial Council papers for 1861-65 will show this. Apendix 4.,—N0. 2 contains a voluminous amount of correspondence on the Aucklard and Drury Railway, and it will there bo seen that the contracts finally entered into wero not made until tho end of tho year 1864 or beginning of 1865, that for No. 1 section being entered into on tho 30th December 18G4 ; ho will find also that upon every point, with regard to tho action taken in the construction of the railway, tho Commissioners invariably roferred tho question to tho Superintendent, and that that official as invariably consulted tho Eugiueer-in-Cliief as to what should be done. Thus upon " Fairplay's " own admission the Engineer-in-Chiof is responsible for the failure of the railway-. I ask " Fpirplay" will he givo_ me tho name of tho railway in Now South Wales with which tho name of his patron is associated ? As to tho sreer conveycd in the latter part of bis letter, I shall tako no notice of that. At tho presont moment when there is a talk of entering on another largo public work, a dry dock —and when tho present Superintendent appear to bo leaving all to tho s?me head, that I think I may fairly say approved the plans nndor which the province squandered £117,000 on an abortion of a lino of railway, scarce five miles long— thero is, I say, amplo reason that tho publio shoud know who was to blame for tho railway failure, .'est thoy should havo lioroaffcer to ask who constructed a dock as usoless as tho Railway at oven a heavier cost. —Your? &c., Conibacxob. Parnoll, June 21.