23

greater than anyone else. It is apparently his

first job as Chief Resident Engineer and he must be

aware that if he gets known as the man who made a mess

of the Canton Kowloon Railway he will have little chance

of such a post again. At the same time he was (a) new

to the position of Chief Engineer, and (b) new to working

for a Colonial Government - while the HongKong Government

leaving out of account the Governors was itself new to

the Departmental system of construction under a Consulting

Engineer. Sir M. Nathan said "The Chief Resident

Engineer is in effect an officer of the Consulting

Engineers and the local Government can only interfere

through its own officers with the way in which he carries

out his work at the expense of relieving the Consulting

Engineers of the responsibility that theoretically rests

on them for the efficient and economical construction of

the railway. In practice Your Lordship will probably,

and the people of HongKong will certainly hold me

responsible if there is great delay or waste of money in

the completion of the Railway..

10630/07.

In this horit thes. 15 of the Cop

Aurmo. Frented in

[Cd. 2325 (hags 27)

to ulrich

Prefevo in pas. 67

41352.

Now as to this, if professional responsibility

means anything, the Consulting Engineers are not only

"theoretically" but practically responsible for the con-

struction of the railway. The Governor is not responsible

except so far as he interferes with the work and the

Secretary of State I am sure would not be so unfair as

hold him responsible for anything due to the default of the

Consulting Engineers or of their Resident Engineer. As

work,

to his "responsibility" to the "Colony", the Governor is

subject

to

men

subject to public criticism like other puolic pati

but he is not in any strict sense "responsible" to

"local public opinion": and from my experience I

should say that "local public opinion" is far too

pleased to have a chance

+

however bad to abuse the

Engineers Crown Agents and the Consulting to trouble to go out

of its way to abuse the Governor when so much better

sport offers.

Of the complaints against Mr. Eves (1) and

(4) are I think fairly met by consideration of the

special difficulties of the work and the shackles in

which Mr. Eves was placed by Sir M. Nathan's instruc-

tions. (3) seems hardly borne out by the instances

adduced for (a) amounts to nothing (b) to very

little (c) was apparently due to a misapprehension by

the Governor and another misapprehension by Mr. Eves as

(4) is

to the meaning of a not very clear letter.

due mainly to natural causes and the only complaint

to which no definite answer can be returned is (2)

the King contract proposal. As to this, a possible

explanation is that Mr. Eves had been so badgered by

the Secretariat and the focal Auditor for returns,

authorities, copies of petty contracts,e:

desperation he was prepared to put forward any pro-

etc.t that in

posal which would relieve him from this continual

worry.

Send cut copy of Consulting Engineers' report, observing as at P, suggest that Gourmor should do

C.E. sugges

an

Dr.

जै

a.) 29/1

25/ aunseling Enginel

eers

Share This Page