Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MR KING IN REPLY.

(To the Editor,)

Sir—l regret having to trouble you with any remarks of mine on the Mungapakeha bridge question, more especially as I am still a servant of the County Council, but Mr Beese has made so many untrue assertions, and so many base insinuations in connection with this and other county works, which, if not checked, might bias the minds of honest people. I intend to say but little on the materials used in the construction of the bridge, as that I presume will be fully inquired into by the Council at its next meeting. The measurement of the span of the bridge by Mr Reese shows simply that he is incapable of making the simplest measurements correctly, The span on the plan from panel point to panel point is 90 feet at' it should be, and Reeses measurement, I presume, from face to face of the piers, goes to prove that the plan has been strictly adhered to. _ Mr Rees.e in his letter on this subjeot insinuates tmit I have spoken in terms of praise to.my employers of the workmanship in, the Mungapakeha bndge. I. emphatically deny the charge, on the contrary I:said that it wasawugh job. Many better-jobs have been done by contactors in %>

district, notably, those executed by Thompson and Go,, Cushmari, Carlson and McDonald, and John McDonald, Inman and Evenden have also executed some very excellent work while in the omploy or. tbeCounty as contractors, On the other hand there are County bridges that are not so well • builtag the Mungapakeha bridge. The*WH trusses that were formed for the Wai> hoine bridge were so bungled that it required all the skill of Cashman to save them from being entirely spoiled. They are not so well constructed as are the trusses of the Mungapakeha bridge. Not only has Mr Reese turned out some of the worst bridge work ever executed under me for the Counties, but he lias quite recently left as coslplete the most shamefully-scamped earthwork contract that I however had anything to do with, for "completion of which part of the contract price was retained by the Council, and day-work men are now endeavoring to make if decent. Messrs Ueeße and Dawsou erected a small truss bridge over thfr Hawera road. On paying a visit of ; inspection to the work. I found Mr Reese making up one of the approaches witli logs and rubbish instead ol eajMpjA, suring the abutment of the bridge,f'as.weWas a large saving in earthwoi€ It is a well known fact that certain different kinds of timber when brought- irito contact with each other in an unseasoned state produce rapid decay. -i lam (fee, v ■ John King,); • County Engineer/*

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WDT18841101.2.10

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1829, 1 November 1884, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
452

MR KING IN REPLY. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1829, 1 November 1884, Page 2

MR KING IN REPLY. Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1829, 1 November 1884, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert