The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1874.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1803, 13 October 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1874.

Majoe Goedok, in his annual report, gives tho Thames Naval Brigade credit for being a smart body of nien, but immediately ' after he. qualifies even this faint praise and charges the Brigade with neglect of their guns. The , following paragraph relative to this matter occurs in the report:—

- The carriages, limber, and gUDS (howitzers) of the Naval Brigade have been standing for years outside the Naval Drill-shed, exposed to eun, rain, &c, and niy inspection of them discovered their entire woodwork to be perfectly rotten. On this account, I could not satisfy myself that the memberi of the corps knew anything of their duty as punners. I 'recommend that the guns bo taken into store, and the woodwork burnt or sold; but I think a board of offi ers should first decide as to who is accountable for this wanton loss of Government property. A corps which has for years past received s© large an amount or capitation as has this corps, should have been directed to place a covering of some sort orer the guns confided to their charge. This corps is very anxious to possess a boat, and one is essential to comply with, the form of Naval efficiency certificate; but

no guarantee was supplied to prevent its receiving the same, treatment as that which had been bestowed upon the limbers and carriages of the two howitzers.

The " recommendation " embodied in the preceding paragraph was acted oa by the Government, and. a board of officers was appointed to conduct the enquiry into the " wanton loss of valuable Government property." . The Board consisted, we believe, of Captain Hazard (President), Captain Macdonald and Lieutenant Carnie (member*). After hearing all the evidence that could be obtained, the Board arrived at the decision that the report was unjust and unwarrantable—or something to the same effect. Had' Major Gordon taken the trouble to make enquiries, he might have obtained information which would have led to the expression of a milder opinion, or to a qualification of that to which he committed himself. From en--quiries we have made we find that the guns now in possession of the Tfaval Brigade were issued by the Ordnance Department in 1855 ; so that they have been in use for nearly twenty year3—a period which might have suggested to the gallant major that time had something to do with the decay of the woodwork, instead of " wanton loss," whatever that may be. These same guns were in use during 'the war of 1863 and following years, exposed to the weather for a greater part of that time, ife is said.' In 1869 the Thames Naval Brigade applied for guns, while Captain Best was in command of the corps. The two howitzers were issued, and the carriages were then in a very indifferent condition —so bad, in fact, that on the first field day they were required one of the wheels had to be patched with iron plates to enable the gun to be moved to Tararu. That was on the 24th May, 1870. Since that time the gun carriages have been getting worse. The Government made no provision for their safe keeping under cover,andthedecayin the wqodworK, which had begun before the pieces were brought to the Thames, was rapid, exposed as it was to all sorts of weather. These facts Major Gordon might have learned if he had chosen; but it seems that\he preferred to show his smartness for ferretting out causes of complaint. In the case of the Naval Brigade and their guns he has failed to give any proof, and we shall not be surprised to learn that if charges against other companies are investigated they will be found to be equally groundless. If that against the iSTavals had been substantiated the Officer Commanding the District would have been as much to blame as anybody.

It will be remembered that when Mr. Thomas Dunlop was summarily relieved of the management of th« Bird in Hand Company's mine, it was alleged by one of the directors as a reason for his dismissal that; Mr. Dunlop had not prosecuted the works with sufficient diligence and expedition. It was thought at the time that this was a' mere subterfuge to corer some ulterior design of the directors who, having determined upon dismissing Mr. Dunlop, were prepared to seize upon any pretext that offered. Two of the directors, however—Messrs. Fryer and Macky —requested three well-known mine managers to inspect the workings and express an opinion as to the quantity and quality of the work performed under Mr. Dunlop's management. The gentlemen invited to undertake this inspection were Messrs. S. E; Richards, A. Dewar and J. Eernick. - They have . visited the Bird in i Hand workings and reported on each work separately, and their report is in direct contradiction to the reason given by the directors for ousting Mr. Dunlop from his position. The report concludes as follows: —

" With regard to the Equality of the work performed, we can only state that the whole of the works are carried out in a thoroughly systematic manner, and afford the most ample facilities for carrying on operations on a large scale. A great portion of the ground operated on has required blasting; and taking into consideration all the circumstances attendant on opening up new works, we are unanimously .of opinion that ~we have never seen a greater amount of work of the same quality performed in the same time, namely, five weeks.—We are, &c, S. E. Bichaeds, Alexandek Dewab, James Keenick." , :