C
T
:
3.
81
са 8325
oy
22nd Jan: /08 enclosures
6th Jan: /08
28th Apr: /08
not been neglected.
9. The conclusions come to however in that report,
as also those in Mr.Chadwick's report of the 18th of
February 1907, which led us to draw the inferences expressed
in our letter of the 5th March 1907, require, in the light
of our further investigations, some modification.
10.
I forward a copy of a letter with aclosures from
Mr.E.Smith, and of a further memorandum from him setting
forth his explanation of the case. In this letter and in
his interview with us Mr.Smith states that had he known that
the pipes were required to withstand a working pressure of
800 lb. per square inch he would have proposed a thicker
pipe. He was asked for pipes to stand a test pressure of
1500 lb., and his pipes were ample for this and did in fact
stand it during inspection when every pipe was tested.
that pressure is only maintained for a few seconds.
resist a long-continued pressure of 800 lb. greater thickness
is necessary. His contention is confirmed by the enclosure
to his letter and by the fact that when tenders were after-
wards invited for pipes to stand the same conditions a thick-
ness of 3/8" was specified.
To
But
11. We referred Mr.Smith's letter to Mr. Chadwick for
his remarks and I enclose a copy of his reply. The Colony
no doubt looked to Mr. Chadwick to draw up an effective speci-
fication for these pipes though it would have been a wise
precaution to give him the actual working pressure as a guide
and to have stated the minimum thickness of the pipes required
as was done in the case of the later supply. The result
shews that it would have been advisable to have allowed for a
greater