The Evening Star. SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2202, 28 May 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star. SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1870.

Although the Provincial Council have not shown any extraordinary sensitiveness in dealing with contractors, we were hardly prepared for the opposition of last night to the Port Chalmers Railway contract, and feel glad for the honor of the Province that the action taken by the Government has been validated. Had this not been done, there could henceforth have been no faith placed in any contracts entered into. The debate was chiefly remarkable for Mr Millar’s expression of opinion upon the projected line. Mr Millar’s

criticisms ai'e entitled to consideration, on account of bis undoubted talent as an engineer ; but to accept them as applicable to the line in question, it was necessary that he should have seen that actually proposed to be constructed by the contractors. It would appear from the revelation of what took place in his endeavors to see the plans, that it is doubtful whether he saw anything more than a mere rough tracing of a line that might, or might not, be adopted; and that even the Government and the contractors themselves were not quite sure which would be the best route. This, so far as the contractors are concerned, was natural enough ; and this is where we blame the Government. It was not likely that the contractors would go to the expense of minute survey, and provide detailed drawings of plans and specifications, on the mere surmise that they might possibly get the contract. Even for a railway of eight miles, under the most favorable circumstances, weeks of preliminary labor are required. But this proves that the Government have entered into a blind bargain. Nothing could have been easier than to have made, as one of the conditions of contract, that the contractors should repay to the Government the cost of survey on their tender being accepted ; and nothing can be plainer than that the country should have known what they were going to have for their money. But it is one of the strokes of genius of the present Executive, quite in keeping with the “how not to do it” system, to say to the world of contractors, “ We have liberty to gnaran- “ tee 8 per cent, on £70,000 for fifteen “ years on a railway—who’ll make the “ railway 1 ” It is quits true when a certain number of gentlemen came forward and said “We will,” they, were virtually replied to “You shan’t” — simply because they were going about it like men of business, making the ground sure. But all that is ill the past. The contract is made, and blind as it is on both sides, it is for us to consider whether the forebodings as to the thing we are to get for our money are likely to be realised. We think not, simply because it is the interest of the contractor to provide a good article. It is not as if the railway were deliverable at the end of eighteen months or two years, on certificate of the inspecting engineer. The probability would have been then, that every possible advantage would have been taken, and if a piece of bad work at a cheap rate could have been foisted upon the Government, through its escaping the observation of the inspector, there would have been no hesitation in scamping it. But the matter is very different when the contractor's are to work the line and bear the risk. It becomes equally their interest to guard against failure as it is that of the Government. Should they, as suggested by Mr Millar, go to the expense of constructing a railway which through the ravages of the teredo render passengers liable to travel between heaven and earth, they would have to bear the cost of repairs ; and in case of accident they would be subjected to damages so heavy as to exceed many times the difference between doing the work substantially or carelessly. As it is their manifest interest to make the line substantial, and therefore safe, it is equally so that it shall be equal to the probable traffic for fifteen years. It will cost far less to construct a good line than to keep a bad one in repair. Hie first outlay may be a little more, but the subsequent expenditure will be infinitely less. The loss of time, cost of repairs, damage to rolling stock, and probable compensation for injury to goods or persons through a false economy in forming an imperfect line, form a heavy bond rendering it imperative that the work shall be well clone. Admitting, therefore, that it is more than probable that the line will not cost the money on which interest is guaranteed, we cannot agree with Mr Millar that the railway will prove an “ abortion.”