A Costlg Bungle.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 839, 30 March 1888, Page 28

A Costlg Bungle.

(From the New Zealand, Times, March 23.) Attacks have been made from time to time on the Public Works Department as regards its performance of “ architectural functions,” but certainly the fate of the Seacliff Asylum, on which building some .£60,000 of public money has been expended, goes to show that the relegation of the work to a private architect is not always an improvement. The Department, as is perfectly well-known, had nothing whatever to do with the construction of the Seacliff building : had no power even to “ supervise ” its erection. All was taken out of the Department’s hands and entrusted to a private architect, • with the results now disclosed. The late Mr Macandrew, as Public Works Minister in the Grey Government, had Mr Lawson, a Dunedin architect, appointed to carry out the whole work, and agreed to pay him the large commission of 7% per cent, or £4185 in all, for designing the buildintr, furnishing the drawings aud specifications, and supervising the work. In addition to this, the Government undertook to pay a gentleman in Mr Lawson’s own office to act as his clerk of works and inspector, but to be under Mr Lawson’s sole control. The whole affair was thus, as we have said, taken out of the hands of the Public Works Department, and the architect, Mr Lawson, is solely responsible for the building, be it. good or bad. The result is sufficiently indicated by the report of the Royal Commission, of which we published a summary last week. The building is re ported as in a very unsatisfactory condition ; the front gable fractured ; the ambulatory rent and fissured and bent to a very serious extent; the north wing sunk ; extensive fractures across the piers and arches ; the west wall in a state of disintegration, the east wall weak and faulty in construction, narrowly escaping ruin ; the turrets and centre gable iusecure, the foundations inadequate —“ cracks ” and “ distortions” and “rents” and “fissures” in various places, and such a state of thmgs prevailing that a constant watch is deemed neceseary so that all may be ready for the patients’ hasty removal should this be necessitated by the further deterioration of the edifice. This is a cheerful result after paying a commission of £4185 ! The Commissioners are of opinion that the state of the building is due partly to insufficient drainage of the site and partly to defective construction. On the former point the architect asserts that he several times endeavoured to get £he Public Works Department to make tho needful drains, but could obtain no answer. The Commissioners remark that “30 months” elapsed- before any answer was received, and for this delay they deem the Department blameworthy. We cannot understand upon what grounds the Commissioners arrived at this conclusion, for the evidence appears to us to show that Mr Lawson’s letter urns duly replied to through the proper channel (his own written acknowledgment proving this), that on Mr Lawson being requested to give further particulars as to what drainage he required, he returned no answer for nearly a year, and that on his stating what drainage he wanted that was done for him, and had no beneficial effect whatever. We can mere readily understand the Commissioners’ view that if the architect were not satisfied with the drainage provided he was very blamable for not insisting on what was necessary, and for going on with the building without it. He appears, on the contrary, to have implied his content with what was done, and in any case deficient drainage is considered by the Commissioners to be only partially accountable for the damage. The most serious matter seems to be the gravely faulty character of the construction. The revelations on this head afforded by the evidence and brought out prominently in the full report, are of most startling character. It is almost incredible that so important and extensive a work should have been carried out in such a manner. In the first place the specifications are declared by the Commissioners to be exceedingly defective, very loose, and quite insufficient the wording being “ indecisive and inexact ” oven the proportions of njateviaiil

to be used ia making the concrete for the foundations, being left open ; aod the Commissioners further say that no adequate working drawings were furnished by the architect as agreed upon (and paid for) ; bat these Imd to be made by the inspector in the time which should have been devoted lo his duties of inspection, the consequence being that inferior materials and workmanship were overlooked. And, worst of all, a most serious and unwarrantable alteration was made in that vital point—the founda tions, these being so reduced in bearing surface as to bo utterly in adequate to support satisfactorily the weight imposed upon them, while the stalls were weakly and defectively constructed, and yet turrets and other extra loads were placed on those “ too slim ” walls. Moreover, the inspector is stated to have lacked proper support on the part o/ the architect in dealing with the contractors, over whom he was consequently unable to exercise due control. The upshot is that part of the building will have to pulled down and rebuilt differently at heavy expense to the country.

Such, then, is the purport of this very disquieting report, and save in the one particular to which we have already referred, it seems to be entirely supported by the evidence which indeed would have warranted some much more severe expressions. We do not imagine that the matter will be allowed to rest where it stands. Probably both Mr Lawson and Mr Blair may both have a good deal more to say yet on the subject, and it is tolerably safe io predict that much will be heard about it when Parliament meets. Little hesitation, however, will be generally felt in allocating the . chief blame for this disastrous affair, so far as the present information goes. Whether any future disclosures will throw a new light on the case, we are, of course unable to say, but we should think it unlikely. Certainly, the way in which the con struction of this vast and eostlv building has been carried out is the reverse of satisfactory, and it ia rather hard that the whole expense of rectifying what is wrong should fall upon the shoulders of the taxpayers, who have already paid very heavily for what ought to have been good and sound and faithful work. How far the taxpayers have received what they paid for may be learned from the Commissioners’ report.

CFrom the New Zealand, Times, March 24. J It has been alleged that we have made an “ attempt to.exonerate the Public Works Department from all blame in connection with the Seacliff Asylum business.” ,We have done nothing of the sort. We have simply commented independently on the report and the evidence on which that report was professedly based. The Commissioners censured the Department for not taking notice of the architect’s letter about the drainage of the site. The evidence shows that notice was taken of the letter, and - that all was done which the architect required. -That is the only point as “to which any blame is attached to the Department by the Commissioners, and a perusal of the evidence will show that the blame is based on a misconception. “ The contention that, because ' the work was entrusted to a private architect, on commission,'' the Public' Works Department was absolved of all responsibility for the expenditure of the money provided for on its estimates,” “may be really absurd,” as is asserted; but ' the contention is the Commissioners’, not ours. The question of drainage related solely to the preparation of the site, and riot to‘the building itself hr the contract, so that it is a complete misconception to suppose that “MrLawson, the architect, was acting, to some extent at least, under the control of the Department,” and that this “is sufficiently proved by the fact of his having to refer to it in regard to the drains, •fee.” It is not the drains of the building that are referred to, but simply the preparatory drainage of the site. It is difficult to see upon what ground it is contended that “if he (Mr Lawson) was in no way responsible to the Department, as is contended, he might, had he chosen, have erected a church ora prison instead of a lunatic asylum, and the Public Works Department, although providing the funds, would have had no control over liis action,” seeing that his engagement wa3 to build an asylum according to certain plans, and that had he built anything eLe, neither he nor the contractor would have been paid until they had erected what they were engaged to do. It is remarked: —“Surely the Department, although it employed Mr Lawson to prepare plans and specifications, examined and approved these plans before the Minister of Public Works signed a contract for carrying them out; Mr Lawson must have have had some instructions from the Department as to what kind of building was required, and if so the Department should have seen that the plans were'in accordance with the instructions.” Just so ; and the

most serious complaint made both by the Department and the Commissioners against tlio architect is that lie did not carry out the approved plans, but departed most seriously from them in the all-im-portant matter of the foundations, which were unwarrantably weakened ; also in respect of quality of material and in other respects ; to these departures being mainly due, in the Commissioners’ opinion, the defects in the structure. In everything relating to the building and its construction the Commissioners absolutely acquit the Public Works Department of blame and condemn the architect. They may be right or they may be wrong, but the conclusions are theirs and not ours. The Department is only implicated in the matter with reference to the preparation of the site, and the Commissioners expressly say that it is doubtful whether this really had anything to do with the failure of the building. But they are in no doubt at all as to the effects of the defective foundation and the weak construction, and these are due to unwarranted departure from the authorised plans—so, at least, say the Commissioners —and it is hard to see how their conclusions as experts can be impugned. We care nothing for the interests of the Public Works Department, which is quite able to fight its own battles, but we care a great deal to have the true facts of this remarkable affair accurately stated, and clearly understood by the public.

The visit of the English team of cricketers to Wellington should have a very good effect upon local cricket. Many useful lessons may be learned from the style and method of the Englishmen’s play. No one would expect a Wellington team to be at all the equal of an eleven which includes men of such eminence in the cricket world as Shrewsbury, Lohmann, Briggs, Pilling, Maurice Read and others. But when every allowance has been made it must be admitted that the play of the local twenty-two was in many respects very weak indeed. Their bowling was remarkably good, and their batting, though considerably affected by nervousness, was fair ; but the fielding generally showed a lamentable want of practice and energy. The coolness with which the Wellington men waited' for the ball to come to them—instead of rushing to meet it, and the irregularity of their returns, contrasted very unfavourably with the style in which their opponents ran toward the ball and returned it so smartly and accurately. Fielding, one of the most important departments of cricket, too often receives the least attention, the invariable result being that many runs aregiven away. This was amply demonstrated in the recent match, altogether apart from the large number of easy catches that were missed, and we hope that Wellington cricketers, recognising as they now must the value of smartfielding, will endeavour to acquire it. In batting some excellent hints may be obtained from the visitors, especially with respect to playing back. Anyone observing the play of the Englishmen could not fail to notice how seldom they played back, while at the same time they never left the crease to go out and play forward. The Australian plan of watching the ball until it reaches the bat is not in vogue amongst English batsmen, but the principle of playing hard down on it as it rises from the pitch is perhaps more sure. There are times, of course, when a man simply must play back, as, for instance, to some of Gore’s bowling, but it was only done in the late match whenitwas unavoidable,and as a matter of fact Mr Smith was the only member of the English team who played hack as a rule. Again, the English players never went out to meet a ball to drive it, which is an invaluable lesson to batsmen who wish to emulate those long drives along the green that were so noticeable. In another way some “points” are to be obtained, and that is in connection with the bowling, Though the bowling of both Lohmann and Briggs had a great deal of “work” in it, there is no doubt the wickets wero got by the ingenious disposition of the field. When Lohmann, bowling over the wicket with a break to the off, was on, two men were kept in the slips, almost behind the wicket keeper. The ball rose very sharply from the pitch, and the unwary batsman who essayed to cut it, in nine cases out of ten snicked it into the hands of the watchful gentleman in the rear. This, it may be remarked, is the device by which Lohmann has invariably beaten Moses, the best bat in Australia at the present time, and is a practical demonstration of the value of the “offtheory,” of which Garrett is such an able exponent. The same principle was applied in Briggs’ bowling. The sturdy little Lancashire man bowled with his left hand, round the wicket, and broke in a good deal from the off. The ball, as in Lohmann’s case, rose a great deal, and the batsmen put it up gently to a rather deep mid-off, where a fieldsman had . been stationed. These are all points in which our local cricketers, if they will take the trouble to observe for themselves, will derive much useful instruction from the play of our visitors.

We are informed on authority that the date of Parliament’s assembling is not yet definitely decided, and may be in either the last week of April or the first week of May. It depends on one or two matters which are still unsettled.

The population of the City of Wellington is now officially estimated at 28,235, as against 27,595 last year.

More than once during the last few months we have directed attention to a matter regarding which a radical reform is

urgently required. We refer to the need of some efficient check on the present wholesale erection -of discreditable and insanitary hovels or shauties—grossly miscalled “dwellings” or “residences”—for they are utterly unsuited for human abodes, not merely from their cramped internal dimensions and defective arrangements, but also owing to the way in which they are crowded together. We need not specify instances. They are abundant. Alike in Thorndon, in Te Aro, and in Cook Ward numerous cases may be seen of incipient “rookeries,” where, as surely as we live, we shall ere long see the unfortunato occupants scourged with disease and infecting their better-housed neighbours as well.. If there were a deliberate design to render this city unhealthy and to damage its future, no plan could be adopted better' calculated to attain this end. It is-high time that a resolute protest was made against this abuse and vigorous measure adopted to put a stop to it. Some sort of architectural censorship, such as would enable the local authorities to stop the erection of dangerous or insanitary buildings, is what should be provided. This would involve legislation, but no more pressing matter calls for the attention of Parliament. We are glad to hear that the Mayor is strongly convinced of the urgency of the need and that he purposes moving actively in the matter. He ought to be warmly supported. We believe that the Government are disposed to move in the matter, and strenuous representations should be made to them on the subject,, lest it should be lost sight of in the turmoil of general policies. We shall have more to say on this question another day.

There is one apparent misunderstanding in connection with the Seacliff Asylum scandal that it may be well to clear up, as, if allowed to pass, it may have a very mischievous effect on the public interests. It seems to be imagined that the architect of the Seacliff Asylum was to some extent subordinate to the Public Works Department: that he was under its control, and was responsible to it for his work ; and that he and his doings were subject to its inspection. There could not be a greater mistake. The error is evidently based on a misapprehension as to the position of an architect or engineer employed by the Government to carry out a special work. He is not in any sense subordinate to the Department, but holds for the time absolute independent power. It is not he who is responsible to the Department, but everyone else concerned in the construction, of the particular work with which he has been entrusted is responsible to him, and to him only. All payments to the. contractor are made on his certificate alone, and nobody else can interfere. It is for this responsibility that he is paid so highly. Once chosen for the post and appointed by the Government, he is virtually supreme, and is no more subject to afiy control on the part of the Public Works Department than if he were the officer of another Government. He is simply instructed to have a certain wobk carried out on certain general lines, and within certain limits as to cost, and all the rest is necessarily left to him. If he be an architect, and the work required be a lunatic asylum, he is directed to design a building of a particular material, and providing a specified amount of Accommodation, not exceeding a fired cost. He submits to the Government his general plans—not the detailed plans and specifications of course—showing the design and the internal arrangements. These being approved, ;he has next to draw up the detailed plans and specifications for the contractor, ahd to get a contract taken. Nobody can interfere with his specifications. Probably no one excepting the tenderers would even see them. That is entirely his affair. He is presumably competent, Jor he would not be appointed. Being appointed, everything is in his hands, and very rightly so. It would be a most mischievous and dangerous thing if the Public Works Department could interfere with an expert, be he architect or engineer, who might have been appointed to the charge of a special work. The result would be such a division of re sponsibility as would in effect take .all responsibility off the shoulders of the man who was specially (and highly) paid to sustain it. It is the more important that there should be no mistake on this point, inasmuch as some other important and expensive works are now being carried out under the charge of specially-retained experts outside the Department. It will never do for them to suppose that after their being well paid to carry out the work and invested for the time with the full powers of the Public Works Department they can nevertheless escape any of the responsibility which they have been paid to undertake. In the Seacliff case the money, for the building was duly paid on the certificate of the architect, who alone had the power to give it, and it was only when the building had been erected and then began to crack and sink that an examination of the foundations showed these and other details to be in the defective condition described by the Commissioners.

The stand made by the Wellington representatives in the cricket match on Saturday was a very creditable one, and went to prove that their poor display on

Friday was due to nervousness rather than to the want of batting ability. The success of those members of the team who went in toward the close of the innings showed conclusively that a great deal can be done by pluck, and, looking at the material to hand, there is no reason why Wellington should not bike a good position in cricket if the services of a professional “coach” could be obtained. This ought to be set about without any further delay—certainly before next season.

From the Registrar-General’s report on the vital statistics of New Zealand for January, 188 S, we learn that 90 births occurred in Auckland, 72 in Wellington, 37 in Christchurch, and 60 in Duncuin. The deaths were—Auckland, 43 ; Wellington, 41 ; Christchurch, 17 ; Dunedin," 21 ; the respective death-rates per 1000 of population being Wellington, 1*45 ; Chi’istchurch, 1"05 ; Dunedin, 0"68. That of Auckland is not given owing to the necessary information as to population not having been received. The Registrar appends the following remarks, which apply only to the four principal boroughs : The births in January were 259, against 212 in December, an increase of 47. The deaths in January were 122, against 75 in December, an increase of 47. At Auckland the increase was from 15 to 43 deaths, and at Wellington from 19 to 41. There was greater mortality at these towns from nearly all causes in January than in December. Among the causes are observed diarrlioeal diseases of infants, diseases of the digestive system and debility in infants. There were 7 deaths of persons of 65 years and upward ; four males of 78, 77, 72, and 66, died at Auckland ; a male of 74, and two females of 67 and 64, at Wellington. From specific, febrile, or zymotic diseases there were 23 deaths in January against 11 in December. Diarrlioeal complaints caused 15 deaths against 5 in the previous month ; of these, 14 were of infants not exceeding one year of age. From constitutional diseases the deaths in January numbered 25, an increase of 8 on the December number. Deaths from phthisis, included in the above, were 12 against 5 in December. In the class “local diseases,” of a total of 47 deaths, diseases of the digestive system caused 15. In December there were 29 deaths in the class, and 6 from diseases of the digestive system.

According to the official meteorological report for January, 1888, the mean temperature of the air was considerably below the average in Auckland and Wellington, but in Canterbury was slightly above. No higher temperature than 78"0 degrees was recorded in Auckland or 73 "3 in Wellington, but in Canterbury the thermometer once rose to 89 "0 in shade. The lowest night temperatures were 54"5 in Auckland, 46"5 Wellington, 41 "4 Canterbury. The rainfall was greatly below the average at all stations, but curiously enough the number of rainy days at each place was in excess of the average.

It is understood that a large proportion of Ministers’ time since Parliament was prorogued has been occupied in endeavours to effect a final settlement of the Midland Railway contract. Various unforeseen difficulties are said to have arisen owing to the very indefinite shape in which matters were left by the late Government, and the arrangement of all the moot points has been a work of great labour and much anxiety. It is hoped and believed, however, that at last the longvexed question has been finally settled. At all events, a form of contract embodying the extreme extent of concession to which the Government would deem it right to consent has gone Home by the San Francisco mail which left New Zealand on Monday. It is expected that the London Directors may even yet raise objections and endeavour to obtain further alterations, but if so, any such attempts will be strenuously resisted. It is not anticipated, however, that this will be the case, as the contract in its present shape complies with all the reasonable stipulations of the Company, whose representatives in the Colony appear to be satisfied with the footing upon which the agreement between the Company ahd the Government has at last been placed.

The question has been asked several times lately in the newspapers whether anything is going to be done by the Government for the deferred-payment settlers, many of whom are in evil case and wholly unable to meet the payments due. The case of the Southland settlers, whose payments were capitalized and whose tenu of grace is now nearly exhausted, has been instanced as a specially urgent one, and anxious inquiries have been made as to

the intentions of the Government. Some hopes have been built on the promise given by the Premier to Sir George Grey last session that none of the settlers now in arrears should be pressed until some remedy had been devised for their relief. We understand that all the deferred-pay-ment settlers will be dealt with on just the same principle as the Crown tenants, and that their case will be fully provided tor in a Fair Rent Bill which is now in course of preparation, an d which will be introduced at an early'period of the coming session.

We entirely agree with much that has been said as to the unsatisfactory features connected with the erection of the new Government Printing Office. The unconscionable time it has been in hand, the continual messing and muddling with alterations, the heavy expense -which has been incurred, all constitute’ just grounds of complaint against those who may be responsible. It is a crying scandal that after all the enormous expenditure the building will not even now be ready for use in the coming session. It was also an extraordinary blunder to leave the unfinished side—which is most unlikely to be completed for years to come—fronting the main thoroughfare and the central object in the spoiled view from Government House, while the gorgeouslyfinished sides front back streets. Rumour speaks, too, of very large expenditure upon new machinery, with the probable result that some lucky person will get hold of the old appliances for a mere song. The whole affair is the reverse of satisfactory. In this connection we may add that there is no direction in which retrenchment is more urgently needed than in the reckless and extravagant amount of printing work which is done, not only during each session, but through every recess. Radical reform is required in this respect.

We understand that there is a probability of the prison labour which will be employed in the erection of the new battery at Melrose being further utilised in the construction of the road by which the battery will be .approached. This road will form part of the “Queen’s Drive,” which has s o long hung fire.