REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE RAKAIA BRIDGE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4174, 5 July 1875, Page 7

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE RAKAIA BRIDGE.

Chmstchukch, June 11th, The Press this morning has a scathing article on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Rakaia Bridge, which was laid on the table of the Provincial Council yesterday. It says it is somewhat an expensive document, the cost of the Commission having amounted to about ' £709. Still, they may perhaps think it is worth the money. It tells them several things which they are 'much interested in knowing. They will learn from it how public works are carried on in Canterbury, aud in what spirit of accommodation to contractors the supervision of such works is conducted by the Provincial Engineer, and what are the consequences to the Provincial Treasury. The first contract for the Rakaia Bridge was made between the Superintendent of Canterbury arid Mr \V. White, on 7th October, 1869, and the second contract for the conversion of the bridge into a combined road and railway bridge was made on 29th August, 1871. The second contract included the first, and the General as well as the Provincial Governments were to some extent concerned in it. The plans were ap proved by Mr Blackett, acting Engiueer-iu-Chief, anil by the Provincial Engineer, Mr G. Thornton, on behalf of their respective Governments. Mr Bray was appointed Engineer for the General Government, and Mr Thornton (to whom the supervision of the work was entrusted), as Provincial Engineer. No arrangement was made as to the powers to be exercised by the General Government engineer, but there seems to have been an understanding that, as the cost of the bridge was to bo ultimately defrayed by the General Government, their Engineer should so far have control that his consent should be necessary to any alteration. So much for preliminary facts. We now come to the actual carrying out of the contract, and as to which the report may be divided into three parts. The first treats of the design, the second of the practical works of construction, and the third of payments made to contractors as compared with the work done. We will follow the report through these in succession. First, as to design. Mr Bray, as we have said, was appointed Engineer to the General Government when the contract was made in August, 1871; but, in May, 1872, Mr Bray retired from the service of, the General Government, and was succeeded by Mr T. S. Tailored,' who, in his turn, left office in the following November. Thus, in little more than fourteen months, there were three general engineers; while, to add to the confusion, Mr Locke, Clerk of the Works, appointed by the Provincial Government, resigned through ill-health. In November, 1872, and1 for four months, no. successor was appointed. Amid these changes the contractor seems to have been allowed to. do pretty much as he liked. Mr Locke's resignation coinciding with the retirement of Mr Tancrod, left him practically free from supervision, and of this freedom he took the fullest advantage. "He completed- the whole superstructure in a mode entirely at variance with the contract designs." The plan of the bridge as built is Mr White's own.; It has not received the sanction of any of. the engineers', and "differs radically," both in way of omissions and alterations, from any that had been approved of. But what" our .readers will ask is, "What was the Provincial Engineer about ?" He was the officer, in charge of the work, and he at all events remained at his post. Did lie not know of these repeated breaches of contract, and if he knew .of them, how came he to permit them ? The question is a very natural one, and the report enables us to answer it. Mr Thornton was aware of what was done, but did not feel called on to interfere. The contractor assured him that the alterations did not signify, and with that assurance he was perfectly satisfied. He was "content to accept Mr White's words as to theniode in which the bridge'was to be constructed*" •... So much for the design; the next point is the manner in which the contract has been performed. The report states that only one deviation from original plan was ever authorised, and that this one was never carried out, but unauthorised deviations were made to any extent. According to contract, the bridge was to have been built with cross joists supporting longitudinal planking, all of • specified size, the planking to consist of totara, black pine, or sugar-loaf pine, but as the bridge was constructed, cross-joists were altogether omitted, and planking laid on the road, and girders, while, outside the rails, the planking is of white pine, "in very, perishing condition." -These . cross-joists were'equal to 103,488 ft. of timber, the whole of which was omitted by the contractor, as far as could be learnt from the evidence, " without any authority whatever," Mr Tancred appears to have seen the planking before it was laid; and to. have pronounced it "not good at all," but did not object to it, because he was informed by Mr White that it was'used -with the consent of the Provincial Govenmient. But the Commissioners find no evidence of such consent; and tliey point out that the material so used was in direct breach of the contract specifications. Mr Thornton, in his report to the Secretary for Public Works, dated March 10th, 1873, represented the planking as generally good ; while the Commissioners, on the other hand, report that the weight of evidence was directly opposite, and that the bad condition of the planking at the time it war laid down was the common talk of the whole country side. Some of it was already four years old, and had been used for scaffolding, so that since, according to Mr White's evidence, white pine only lasts for five years, it must have been pretty well worn out. The fact seems to be that Mr White had a quantity of old material on hand, and that by laying his planks across instead of lengthways he was able to make use of it, and so save the cost of providing new timber, which would have been requisite had he adhered to his contract. In order to effect this saying he took upon himself to alter the whole design for the flooring of the bridge, and the engineer made no objection. Mr Thornton, as usual, was content to accept Mr White's word as to the way in which the bridge should be constructed. Another fault was that the planks wore not properly secured by spikes at the butts, and this was why the asplialte gave way. The Commissioners say that the asphnlte was well laid, but that it could not stand traffic on account of the insecurity of the planks which formed the founda-.

With regard to payments, it appears that the total sums paid amount to £36,196 15s 7d, of which £32,404 was paid on account of the two original contracts with Mr "White. The payments were authorised by the Engineer, or other duly qualified officer, but the Commissioners report that there has been great waste, and that, in addition, the contractor has been materially overpaid. In August, 1573, when Mr Thornton certified to the completion of work, items wore still missing to the value of £2699 16s 4d. Mr Thornton denies this, and even asserts that the contractor has been out of pocket by the alterations in the design ; but his only authority for the assertion is that Mr White says so. This comparative statement is not considered by the Commissioners to be of much value, " as it was mado up from data supplied by the contractor". The Commissioners' estimate is derived frem two independent statements by Mr Bray and by the General Government Engineer now in charge of the district. On the whole, there appears to have been wasted or overpaid on the bridge sums amounting, inclu:;ivo of £2'J99 lGs 4d mentioned above, to £6037 8s Gd. We suppose that as much more will be required to make it fit for its purpose. The report on the general condition of the bridge is to the effect that (with tho expenditure of siliout £250 to supply nmno missing beams, &o,) it is a strong revilvay bridge, ■ but

that it will fneed entire replanking1 to make it fit for cart traffic. The asphalte—the laying of which cost £1400—has completely broken up. The Commissioners distribute the blame pretty freely among the engineers. ■■The whole conduct of the District Engineers in connection with the Rakaia bridge, is ..said to have been "of the loosest description." They came and went without troubling themselves to an certain what the state of affairs was with regard to the bridge, or on what plfin it'was being constructed. Mr O'Connor passed it.without having before him any authorised plan whatever. He is also declared partly responsible for sundry unnecessary expenses, and chiefly responsible through his neglect in not inspecting the flooring for the failure of the asphalte. But it is mi tbe Provincial Engineer that the weight of the Commissioners*' censure falls. He Is the chief offender. Others may be in fault m this or thafc particular ; ho is the man "to whom the blame attaches all through." It is impossible not to agree with.this conchision; Mr Thornton whs in charge of the bridge from first to last. It was his special business to keep a vigilant watch overthe execution of the contract, and to detect any deviation, and to insist on its being fulfilled to the letter, but he never made the slightest attempt to do his duty. Instead of superintending the contractor, he played into his hands throughout; he allowed him to depart from the authorised design at. pleasure ; lie allowed him to scamp his work ; he certified work without examination; he aeceptcd the contractor's statements as basis for his reports. The result is that on the contract taken at £32,4(54, the Province has already paid nearly £7000 too much, while a large portion of the work is good for nothing, and has to be done over again. For all this waste of money, the Province is indebted to Mr Thornton. He may be a valuable officer, he is, undoubtedly, an expensive one; whether his services are worth their cost, we leave the Provincial Government or Provincial Council to determine. ■

In the Provincial Council this day (Friday); Mr Pilliet asked whether the Government had considered the advisability of relieving the Provincial Engineer of the duties of Iris'" office. Mr Maskell: The hon. member has asked a question which it is not the duty of the Government to answer. I think it is only right ft should be left to the discretion of the Government.—(Hear, hear.)