167
of haarkrigs
of appointment, we are disposed to agree with him that the course
which has been adopted of referring the matter to a technical
Committes justifies some of his objections to that procedure. It
seems to us that the memorandum and agreement contemplate that
except in onses of urgent necessity, matters of a technical nature
should be referred to the Consulting Engineers (see paragraphs 10,
11, 15 & 19 of the memorandum referred to). If the question now
involved were one of urgency, giving cause to the Government of
immediate anxiety, and one on which there was not time for corres-
pondence with the Consulting Engineers, it would be natural that
the arrangements contemplated under Mr.Eves appointment should
for the time be abrogated, but if such be not the case the Con-
sulting Engineers could have dealt with it on full reports being
furnished and if necessary could on request make an inspection on
the spot. We observe that Mr.Bves states that in his opinion
there is no urgency in the matter of the bridges and that the test
weighting of Bridge No.4 is still incomplete so that in this
instance at least it is premature to express any opinion. We
would further remark that the present appears to be a case in
which local inspection and investigation may be required by us and as
there are sundry other matters requiring our inspection that we
are ready, if desired so to do, to arrange for a visit to Hong
Kong.
L
2.