7

E.—2.

58. "Would you explain how it was intended to work the traffic. It is a very important point?— The bridge was designed with a gradient of 1 in 100, sloping downwards from the mine towards the railway station, and there was a turntable designed at the mine end, just close up to the bridge. The ground was too precipitous at that side to admit of approaching the bridge by a curve, so that all the wagons would have had to be run along a line at right angles with the bridge, and put on to this turntable, and run across the bridge. I conceived, therefore, that there never could come upon the bridge a load of more than one full wagon at a time. 59. So that, in the practical working of the bridge, there would have been only one wagon on it at a time ?—Tes ; one full wagon. 60. What would be its weight ?—Ten tons in the centre—equal to a distributive weight of 20 tons. It would have been equal to an additional 20 tons distributed over the length of the bridge. 61. It was equal to 10 tons at one point?—Tes, in the centre, for of course it would sometimes have been in the centre. 62. One wagon would not have carried 10 tons ?—No ; it would only have carried 6 tons. "We call them roughly 10 tons. They are 3 tons each in weight, and the load 6 tons, but it might reach up to 7. 63. Dr. Kniglit.~\ And the load would pass over the bridge by its own weight ? —Yes; by gravitation. 64. How would the wagons be brought back ? —-By horses. 65. Would not a great many wagons bo brought back at once ?—I do not see that there would be much gained by bringing more than three. A horse could not draw more than three up that incline, and walking on smooth planks. The Engineer-in-Chief has calculated for a much greater weight than, that; but I never could see how a greater weight could in practice come upon it. 66. It is calculated for 30 or 40 tons ?—For 40 tons. 67. Have you computed the strain that would be upon each chain, arising out of the permanent weight of the bridge and the rolling weight ? —Tes ; I have computed it. But these calculations of Mr. Carruthera give it all; only they take 40 tons as the load instead of 10. He has provided for the most remote contingency; but in practice no such weight would come. 68. What about public holidays ?—That is quite another thing. There his calculations and mine agree. It is only taking so much per foot for an immense crowd ; though Ido not think that in practice it would occur. It is not necessary it should occur. 69. But as to the strength of the bridge, you would not have made it sufficient merely to carry a contemplated load of one wagon ? You think it necessary it should be of sufficient strength to bear a crowd such as on public holidays; do you not ?—I have always considered that it would be a very great mistake in New Zealand to build all the bridges on the principle they do in London. Toil have usually got the power of regulating the traffic; and where there is no absolute necessity for a dense crowd being upon it, I do not see why a large expense should be incurred in providing for so remote a contingency. A railway bridge is under the complete authority of the railway officials, and they need not allow such a thing to occur as a dense crowd coming upon it. 70. Then, if it had not been designed strong enough to sustain a dense crowd, it would have been necessary to forbid more than a certain number of people coming upon it at one time ?—Tes; that would have been the effect. As a matter of fact, however, the cables of this bridge are strong enough to sustain a dense crowd. 71. Mr. FitzGerald.~\ This bridge was not a public highway ? —No. 72. Dr. Knight.] Taking Mr. Carruthers' estimate of 70 lbs. to the square foot, do you think that excessive? —I do not think it is if you want to estimate for a dense crowd. 73. Mr. FitzGerald.] Did you consider that the bridge not being a highway, it was not contemplated to have a crowd upon it ?—Tes, I did not think it was ever contemplated to have a crowd upon it. 74. Dr. Knight.] If there was a crowd upon it, 70 lbs. to the square foot would be a fair estimate of the load ? —Tes. 75. What do you consider would be the permanent load of the bridge when finished? How many tons? —Ninety-six tons. I am now speaking from memory. I made out that statement with Mr. Carruthers, and I am perfectly satisfied that it is correct. 76. Mr. FitzGerald.] That is what produces the strain of 75 tons? —Tes, 75 on each anchor. 77. Dr. Knight.] Then, you have no doubt the permanent load ought to be multiplied by a factor of safety of 3 ?—Tes. 78. Do you know that that is the factor used by the Board of Trade in England ?—lt depends on what the material is. 79. Speaking of this suspension bridge, do you know the factor of safety of 3 is the one requred by the Board of Trade in England?—l do not know that they have laid down any rule for suspension bridges. I have never come across one laid down by the Board of Trade in England. 80. Do you know what the regulation of the Board of Trade is with respect to the strain on iron generally ?—For wrought iron, 5 tons in tension and 4 tons in compression. 81. Whatever the load may be, what would be the factor of safety for the moving load, according to the regulations of the Board of Trade?—l do not know what regulation the Board of Trade lays down. I know that most hand-books on engineering lay it down that you should take a factor of 3 for the permanent load and 6 for the rolling load. They are, I think, taken so in that statement of Mr. Carruthers. 82. Dr. Knight.] It is 5 here ?—The moving load in that is taken much higher than it would ever be likely to be in practice. 83. I understand you to say that you agree with the computations made by Mr. Carruthers ?— Tes, I agree to them all, except that matter of the moving load, which I do not think would ever be so high as he makes it. 84. Have you made any computations as to the dimensions of the section of the chains in square inches ?—Tes; I went into the calculation of that, but I put it on one side, because I found that the