35

I.—9a,

advice of the department, and, of course, they had to remove this other one. A new crown-bar had been put in, which extended over lift., and went back 12in. on the new brickwork. With the exception of that one through bar the other bars had an overhang of 8 ft., which was entirely unsupported. The contractors were remonstrated with for leaving the work in this way, and were Mr. McKenzie here objected to Mr. Vickerman, one of the department's witnesses, remaining in the room listening to what was said. Mr. Graham also strongly objected ; and Mr. Blow replied that he would have requested Mr. Vickerman to withdraw long before if he had known there was any objection to his being present. The Chairman ordered Mr. Vickerman to leave the room at once, remarking that he was not aware that it was Mr. Vickerman who was present. Mr. Blow : In any case I should like to say that I consider there was no impropriety in his being here. I cannot give evidence personally on this particular matter, and I was merely illustrating the nature of the evidence that was to be called. 1 think there has been great misapprehension in the minds of the Committee as to the way in which the timbering was done. The Chairman : You were stating that certain timbers had an overhang of 8 ft., and were unsupported, and that undoubtedly referred to this particular case. You did not refer to general principles. Mr. Graham : Mr. Blow is simply taking up time in giving us evidence that the overseers and Engineers on the spot could give better. After some further discussion, Mr. Blow was allowed to proceed. Mr. Blow : My only object was to enable the Committee in examining the Engineers and overseers to know a little more about the matter than they did. I am convinced that the impression in the minds of the members of the Committee before was that the timbering that was removed was the timbering that supported the arch, because some of the members expressed a wonder as to how the arch could stand. I wanted to explain to the Committee, and give them a general knowledge as to how the timbering stood. I had no desire further than that. [Continuing]: I think I have now practically done. As I said before, if it had not been for the allegations made with regard to Inspector Witheridge I think the contractor's claim must fail, on the ground that both their claims —the slips and the extra work in the tunnel—are included in their contract. But the allegation made with regard to Inspector Witheridge is important in case it might be held that the department is liable, and, further, as regards the man's reputation as well, some consequence is attached to it. 5. Mr. Wright.] What were the amounts of the other tenders sent in ?—The complete list of tenders of the work is as follows: J. McLean and Sons, £26,616; J. Cheyne and Co., £29,783; Jones and Peters, £30,284; M. Danaher, £31,870; J. Saunders, Wellington, £32,520; J. and A. Anderson, Christchurch, £33,227; Coates and Metcalf, £33,244. 6. Mr. McKenzie.] What is the Government estimate ?—I am not sure that there was a Government estimate; there was no estimate made in the head office. Mr. Hales was District Engineer in Auckland at the time; he will be under examination directly, and he can say if there was any local estimate. 7. Mr. B. D. McLean.] How do you find out the nature of the soil?— The nature of the soil is generally apparent without much difficulty. Sometimes, of course, we are deceived, but, if so, the contractor has to run the same risk that the department runs. If we run the risk of having to pay too much he runs the risk of coming down too low. 8. Does the department give information as a rule?— None but that shown on the drawings. 9. It was nonsense to say the contractor was bound by the Resident Engineer ? —I say he is bound by the Engineer, but not by the overseer. 10. Then, the Engineer can make him alter the work in any way?— Yes; but if the contractor is not satisfied with the directions he gets from the Engineer he can appeal to the Engineer-in-Chief. 11. Mr. Wright.] At what date did the fall take place ? The Chairman : On the 20th January, 1893 —eleven days after the resumption of work—on the 9th January, after the Christmas holidays. 12. Mr. Thomson.] Did I understand you to say that the nature of the excavation was generally apparent from the appearance of the surface?— Generally, and from one's general knowledge of the country. If you were in limestone country, for instance, you would naturally expect before you got many feet down to come into limestone, if a sandstone, country sandstone, and so on. 13. As a matter of fact, you put down a bore and found sandstone, but the material was very different indeed in the tunnel?— Exactly; but the same thing might have occurred even if we had bored exactly on the line of the tunnel. 14. But is not it rather stretching a point to say that the nature of the excavation under the surface was generally indicated by the character of the surface ?—I do not think so. 15. Mr. Flatman [pointing to a plan that had been produced by Mr. Blow]: Is that a departmental plan ? —That plan was prepared by the man who is going to swear to it—Mr. Vickerman. 16. Are these struts in position ?—I have no knowledge. Mr. Vickerman, who prepared the plan, will say. 17. Mr. McKenzie.] Can you give us the Government estimate of this contract? —I have already looked, and find there was no Head Office estimate. 18. Do you mean to say that the Minister for Works asks for contracts without an estimate from his Engineer ? —I can give you a telegram—or, rather, Mr. Hales can when he is examined —with regard to a rough estimate. 19. When you were referring to these plans you endeavoured to get the Committee to believe that the Government were aware that the ground would be of a soft nature ?—No, quite the con-