surel
Ondosu
wtb CA.
15 July and
jol.on
14 with 9 678 the matters which it deals, and in the following instance
his representations of the Consulting Engineers' proposals were in my opinion no less calculated to mislead the Government. On September 16th., Mr. Eves submitted a letter (copy enclosed) which was discussed at the Railway Meeting of September 9th. I have not at that time seen the Consulting Engineers' letter of July 11th, which it appears was not forwarded by the Crown Agents till August 8th. and was received here on September 5th. The plan (which addressed direct to the Chief Resident Engineer arrived by was a later post. Without them it was impossible to examine the proposals and I had already repeatedly directed that they should be sent to me at once on receipt. They were however, in Mr. Eves's possession when he wrote his letter of September 16th. for he describes the Consulting Engineers' proposal at (b) of that letter and attached a plan which he stated was a copy of the Consulting Engineers' plan (though he afterwards stated that the plan was not received for three weeks after the letter). The Consulting Engineers in this letter had proposed a modification of my predecessor's scheme for the Reclamation of an area of sea-bed to form the Station Terminus. The original scheme was estimated to cost $751,000, and after consultation