The Evening Star FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2213, 10 June 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, JUNE 10, 1870.

We do not attach much importance to the point raised by Mr Millar in the Provincial Council yesterday, as to the ■tfay in which the Government took Upon themselves to defend their engineer, Mr Reid was perfectly correct when he said “ it was against the rules “ of the service that a departmental “ officer” should reply to any statements through the Press. At the same time, Mr Reid must be perfectly aware that that rule has in more than one instance been notoriously ignored, and that letters have appeared bearing the impress and occasionally the signature of a departmental officer. This en passant, for so far as the public are concerned, it is very much better that the information given should be authoritatively through the Secretary for Land and Works, than through an anonymous communication. It is to be presumed Mr G, M. Barr did not volunteer the report on which Mr Millar and other members in the Council animadverted so strongly yesterday, but that ho was instructed to prepare it by his political head, in order to justify the Government in the course they have pursued, Mr Reid seems equally sensitive on this

point with Mr Baku. The one seeks to justify himself in the eyes of the country: the other to'glorify himself at the expense of a professional engineer. This is the condemnation which the report should have at the hands of the public. It would have been quite in keeping with Mr R kid’s position as head of the department to have stated that lie had ordered a report to be furnished of the cost of certain bridges, to enable the members of the Council to compare it with certain statements in a public journal. Ho would also have been quite justified in any comments he chose to make. But Mr I\EJD allows the engineer to enter into a controversy on the subject, and to make hiu/ the medium through which the dog and fish fight is carried on between the Public Works Department and the Press. This is one way of getting over the difficulty of replying to the Press—an authorised style of throwing dust into the eyes ot the public. We know nothing of Mr Brunton’s abilities as an engineer, nor of the merits or demerits of the work done under his superintendence. It may bo quite true, as stated by Mr Barr, that they have cost more than he could have had them done for, and that they are weaker than lie would have had them made, Very possibly every figure in Mr Barr’s report may be strictly correct, but it by no means follows that because one bridge cost .£]() 2s lid a foot, and another twice as much, that that which costs the least is either better or worse than the other. It is not the actual cost of a structure that stamps its dearness or cheapness, its fitness or unfitness for the purpose intended. Owing to the character of the banks, or of the river, or of the approaches, or of a thousand circumstances, one bridge may cost very much more or very much less than another. It may do as a daptrap way of satisfying the public to parade statistics of the low price of work done, but men outside the profession now sit in judgment upon it, and must have better reasons given for being satisfied with the explanations tendered, than a mere array of figures representing the cost of something that for aught we know to the contrary might have been better done at half the price. The Government now has accepted battle on behalf of their engineer. So long as that gentleman remained silent, he was to a certain extent shielded from observation. Now that he has spoken through his chief, and attacked the professional reputation of another, he has placed himself in such a position as to render enquiry necessary to justify his own statements. This is the move requisite because of the increased responsibility laid upon his shoulders in the matter of railway construction. On this ground the discussion of yesterday has been of service, for it is now clear who is responsible. Hitherto there has been doubt in the public mind as to who is to be held answerable for carrying out public works. It would be very unfair to hold Mr Barr responsible for anything that' he has not done. The bungling of the past, miserable as it has been, should be laid on the right shoulders ; but we really do not see any signs of amendment. We have urged the necessity for the appointment of a commission of enquiry into this department. The necessity for it is now more apparent than ever. By the report laid before the Council yesterday, the engineer virtually challenges investigation. Mr Beid also, by adopting so loose and unsatisfactory a report as n reply to a statement in the Daily Times, gives the Province no reason to rely on his judgment. It is the general impression, -which we believe to bo well founded, that the civil engineering of the Province is behind the age, and that cheaper and better work could be done—that the revenue could, in fact, be better laid out, and more work done for the money. We know no other way of settling the matter than by the appointment of a Commission, and were we in Mr Reid’s position, we should make a motion to that effect.