41

I.—9a

169. Where was the contract lot, in Wellington or in Auckland ?— It was accepted in Wellington, but the plans were deposited in Auckland and the other principal towns of the colony. 170. The plans were open for the inspection of the petitioners'?— Yes, or any one else. 171. Mr. M. McLean.] In regard to the slip: In that letter that has been already quoted there is a suggestion, I think from Mr Vickerman, that a drive would be necessary ?—That is so. 172. Supposing you had carried out his suggestion—it is understood that the Resident Engineer is in charge and is sole judge as to the merits and demerits of the work—suppose he had suggested it should be put in, would you consider we had to do that at our own expense?— No. 173. Was not that evidence enough that the ground would not stand—that there was something required to keep it up or to get the thing done in the proper way ? —You had to get rid of the water out of the slip so that it would be workable. 174. But in reference to this suggestion. You did not take, any notice of that suggestion at all, but threw the whole onus on the contractors ?—I said anything with regard to the steepness of slope, &c, to be done by the contractor. 175. Mr. McKenzie.] You were District Engineer in Auckland, I believe, at the time this contract was let ?—Yes. 176. Is it not the duty of the District Engineer to provide information?—No, it is not a practice. 177. I want to know, is it customary for the Minister for Public Works to have a departmental estimate ?—No, it is not. 178. Have you got a file of papers in connection with this contract with you? —Yes. 179. Would you say there is no departmental estimate among that file of papers ?—There is a telegram from the Acting Engineer in Chief, Mr. W. Blair, to the District Engineer in Auckland, "Be Makarau Tunnel—kindly wire your estimate." That was to me. 180. And the reply sent was?—£27,l46. 181. And what was the contract price ?—£26,716. 182. You are responsible for the way the contracts are done ? If there is any fault found you are the principal person responsible?—l am not responsible for the making of them. 183. You are also responsible for the departmental report in connection with the petition ?—I wrote it; it originated from me. 184. So that you still maintain that this is a correct report of the position of the contract before it came before this Committee ? —Yes, I was reporting then not on the contract but on tho petition. 185. I suppose you read the petition. There is a miner sill referred to in the petition. Can you point it out there ?—ln what clause in the petition is the miner sill mentioned? 186. About the fourth line in clause 10. That is the sill the petitioner complains that the Inspector compelled him to remove ? —That is so. 187. If you look at your own report you will find that the very sill complained of is still existing in the tunnel ?—That refers to another miner sill. 188. Of course you deny that " Sims's Practical Tunnelling " is a standard work on tunnelling at the present time ?—I admit that it is a standard work. As a modern work it would be scarcely acceptable, but it is still a standard work. 189. And how do you define a ''miner sill" ? —Every sill that is put in by a miner is called a "miner sill," simply to distinguish it from the central sills. 190. There is only one sill described by Sims, and that is a miner sill. Are you aware of that ? —Sims describes a " miner sill" as a sill put in by a miner. 191. In a tunnel where there is only one central sill, he describes that as the miner sill? —Yes; but if there are two or three he also calls them miner sills. 192. Oh, no ! That central sill, any way, is what Sims describes as a miner sill ?—Yes. 193. But, however, you do not maintain that portion of your report now—that that sill is still in the tunnel ?—I was referring to a different sill altogether. 194. Do you still maintain that Mr. Witheridge was justified in compelling the contractors to remove that timber-work out of the tunnel in bad ground? —Where was this? 195. At any time when the ground was bad. It does not matter where ?—lf the bars and struts were properly put in that could be removed. 196. But I want you to tell the Committee whether you think Mr. Witheridge was justified in insisting on the contractors taking away that sill where the ground was bad ?—lf he saw any danger to it he was not. 197. Do you think he was justified in insisting on that timber being removed ?—Yes ; provided the other proper supports were there. 198. What I want to find out is if you still maintain that the Inspector was justified in insisting on the contractor removing these sills and timber-work in bad ground?—l do not know what sill you mean. 199. I mean that sill across the middle of the section —the miner sill?—lf the thing was properly prepared and carried out in the proper manner, he was perfectly justified in ordering their removal. 200. Is it your opinion that it was a safe course to pursue ?—I think so. lam quite certain 201. I think you told Mr. Morrison an Inspector has no authority to interfere with a contractor in carrying out the work ?—All he has to do is simply to warn him, in case he saw him acting wrongly. 202. And no right otherwise ?—No. 203. Then, was he justified in ordering that sill to be taken out?—lf allowing it to remain was injuring the work —certainly. 204. Would it have injured the work in any way if it was left there until the sill was passed by the brickwork ? —Yes.

6—l. 9a.