The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2603, 21 June 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1871.

The Daily Times has this morning committed itself to the expression of an opinion respecting the dispute between the Trustees of the Graving Dock Trust and the contractors, the evident object of which is to vindicate the Trust and to condemn the action of the Contractors and the Government. Wc think in this our contemporary has taken a course, from whatever motive, that is very unfair, as in the possible event of a lawsuit such comments must tend to create a bias in the public mind from whom a jury must be chosen to decide on one side or the other. Neither is the question fairly stated in the Daily Times. We have no wish whatever to say a word to prejudice either party. The Dock Trust has had to fulfil a very important duty, and wherever time and energy are given to the fulfilment of such gratuitous service, the public thanks are duo. Their duty has been to make the best contract possible and to have it carried out under efficient super-vision; and having done this to the best of. their ability, whatever the result, the public cannot blame them. Our contemporary surely might have gone thus far in vindication of their position without committing himself to a condemnation of the contractors for refusing to submit to what it seems very doubtful; whether the Board have a right to require. Herein is the real difficulty : The contractors say that they have finished their work under the direct supervision of two inspectors appointed by the. Board to examine the. materials used and their proper application under terms of the contract : That these inspectors, having the power to object to the material or workmanship as the work went on, by not doing so, virtually approved of both, and now that the work, when done, .proves faulty, the contractors will not- submit to its being pulled to pieces for the sake of satisfying the engineer on a point, that either by personal inspection or through his subordinates, might have been aud should have been, ascertained

as the work proceeded. There are other legal points which complicate the question no little ; such as some slight variation from the specification either-; allowed or directed—We care not which at the point of leakage; and moreover the opinion of one of the most experienced engineers in the Province, who points out that what the Engineer of the Dock Trust requires to be done, cannot be accomplished without risking the stability of the work itself ; and that by a very simple process the whole fault may be remedied. We offer no opinion on the legal powers of the Board under the contract, nor shall we comment, excepting very generally, upon the different opinions expressed by the engineers. It must be evident from ■ the reports we have given that the Board are not unanimous. Most certainly, those who have the best opportunity of judging of the' character of the work, are unwilling to enter upon a very risky lawsuit. The legal members and advisers of the Board, in the interest of the Trust, look only to the powers it may exercise in virtue of the contract; and the Board are necessarily dependent upon the Engineer as to whether or not it is advisable to put those powers into operation. In our opinion, the Government has very wisely stepped in and recommended caution in entering upon an expensive law suit on such very doubtful grounds. It is not a mere question whether one engineer or another is right in regard to the cause of the leak, nor whether Mr Macgregor can break up the floor of the dock without risking the destruction of the work. The legal question is Have the Contractors faithfully carried out the contract they undertook to perform 1 They affirm they have, and they refuse to allow their work to be tampered with for the satisfaction of an engineer in whose judgment they have no confidence. In this they are fortified by other engineers of skill and experience and notwithstanding the array on the other side (Mr Blaiii, on behalf of the Board, expressing a very doubtful opinion), we consider the weight of scientific evidence very much in favor of the contractors. Mr Macgregor’s opinion, notwithstanding his being engineer to the Board, must in this controversy necessarily be left out of the question, because it ia the yalue of it that has been remitted to other engineers to pronounce upon. He may be correct in bis views respecting the opinions of Mr Bbunton, Mr Millar, and Mr Simpson ; hut it cannot be disguised that each of those gentlemen has had great experience, and has a high professional reputation. The works carried to a successful issue under their direction tend to confirm public confidence in them ; and had the Executive acted otherwise than they have done, they would have laid themselves open to censure for rushing into expenditure that we trust will be avoided ; and whidli would tend to greater expense in future undertakings, through contractors being unwilling to undertake public works excepting on such rates as to guarantee them against the possible cost of ultimate litigation. Taking into consideration that the case may be said to be in pendente life, we do not feel justified in going further. It is not a party question—it is a matter of business ; and in a business spirit the Government lias said, “ As we may have to u pay the cost, surely no lawsuit ought “ to be entered upon without first con- “ suiting us.”