33
•
2
52
furnished on a sufficiently large scale to be clear, and that all dimensions of importance be figured on them. Without in any way wishing to evade our responsibility for the mistake which has occurred, I cannot but observe that had proper information been supplied to us, the delay and inconvenience experienced by the Colony would have been avoided.
I have, &c.,
M. A. CAMERON.
Mr. WAKEFIELD to CROWN AGENTS.
Straits Settlements-Singapore, Requisition 26,570.
11, Adam Street Adelphi, W.C., March 28, 1898. The 6 inch by 44 inch joists are stated on my copy of order to be for side verandah entablatures as marked blue on plan. Messrs. MacFarlane stated that they were not required for their portion of the work, and that is the reason they were cancelled.
The 8 inch by 5 inch were sent to Messrs. MacFarlane, and were used in the verandah, but as MacFarlane and Company had ordered five beams of T iron instead of the 4 inch by 3 inch joists, they were allowed to send them, and the 4 inch by 3 inch ordered from Dorman, Long, and Company were cancelled, not being required. Had it been stated that the 6 inch by 4 inch were required for the roof of the building they would have been sent, but as it was clearly stated that they were for the entablatures of the side verandah and Macfarlanes stated they were not required it was thought unnecessary to send them, hence the cancellation. I suppose that by the large verandah girders it is meant the 8 by 5 which were sent to MacFarlane, and which have gone out with the wrought and cast ironwork supplied by that firm.
H. WAKEFIELD.
(G.)
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY to the CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES. (Crown Agents. 2840/98.)
GENTLEMEN,
Colonial Secretary's Office, Singapore, May 13, 1898. REFERRING to your letter of the 31st March, No. 535, I am directed to transmit copy of one from the Colonial Engineer on the matter.
It
that appears your Inspector, Mr. Wakefield, neglected the direction in the indent that the joists should be obtained from Messrs. Dorman, Long, and Company, and erroneously consulted another firm, Messrs. MacFarlane, from whom they were not required.
3. As regards the unsupplied girders, reference to your letter of the 18th Feb- ruary has been made, but it nowhere appears therein that your Inspector was misled by any erroneous statement on the indent, nor in any erroneous statement quoted: all that you allege is that your Inspector failed to discover how these particular girders were to be utilised. Admitting your Inspector's inability, it still furnishes no adequate reason why a clear request should have been overruled.
As a matter of fact the girders were required, and on your failure to supply them they had to be made locally at an enhanced cost.
4. With, regard to the fourth paragraph of your letter in which you complain of a small scale drawing I am to observe that if no drawing whatever had been supplied to you, the indent for the joists in question was both clear and complete; it stated all the dimensions and the firm from which they were to be procured.
The absence of dimensions from the drawing was therefore perfectly justified.
I have, &c.,
C. W. S. KYNNERSLEY,
Acting Colonial Secretary,
Straits Settlements.
53
THE COLONIAL ENGINEER to the COLONIAL SECRETARY.
(No. 429/98.)
Office of Colonial Engineer and Surveyor-General,
SIR,
Straits Settlements, Singapore, May 10, 1898. IN reference to letter No. 535 from the Crown Agents, I have the honour to point out that it will be found on reference to my indent that I applied for the following steel joists, to be obtained from Messrs. Dorman, Long, and Company, viz. :—
4 inches by 6 inches.
8 joists 10 feet 5 inches long each.
4 joists 10 feet 2 inches long each.
2 joists 14 feet 3 inches long each.
2. In the column for remarks these are distinctly stated as being required for side verandah entablatures as marked in blue on plan."
3. In the same indent I also applied for the following joists to be supplied from the same firm:-
5 inches by 8 inches.
6 joists 31 feet long each.
4. In the column for remarks in this case also it is clearly stated that these joists "are for supporting Macfarlane's cast iron balcony as marked in dotted lines on the plan."
5. From the above it is clear that there could not have been any misunderstanding as to what joists were required and from whom they should be got and the Inspecting Engineer should not have taken upon himself to decide what girders should be sent and what should be cancelled. There was no occasion to be guided by Messrs. Macfar lane's opinion, as no part of the indent referred to articles to be supplied by that firm. 6. The indent should have been complied with in its entirety. There is nothing erroneous in the wording of it.
7. I may remark that the plan has nothing to do with the point at issue. Certain steel joists were indented for and full details given as to dimensions, and these should have been supplied.
8. The Crown Agents, it will be observed, enlarge upon the meagreness of the information supplied, but it is worthy of remark that notwithstanding this alleged paucity of details everything was sent out as ordered, save and except the joists, which were held back.
I have, &c.,
A. MURRAY,
Civil Engineer,
* Colonial ineer and Surveyor-General,
Straits Settlements.
(H.)
THE CROWN AGENTS to the COLONIAL SECRETARY.
(No. 538.)
SIR,
Downing Street, London, April 19, 1898. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, P.W.D. 1290/98, of the 1st March, respecting ironwork supplied to the Master Attendant's office in Singapore.
2. In accordance with your request that details of the items may be furnished to you, I enclose a copy of a letter addressed by the contractors to Mr. Wakefield, together with a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Wakefield to us on the subject. I also forward a copy of a further memorandum by Mr. Wakefield, to whom we referred your letter under reply. In ordinary circumstances, seeing that Messrs. MacFarlane's tender was considerably in excess of the Colonial estimate, we should have thought it desirable to invite competitive tenders, which might have resulted in a reduction of cost, but in view of the request contained in the second paragraph of your letter of the 21st July, this course was out of the question, owing to the limited time available, and as Messrs. MacFarlane's tender did not appear unreasonable we placed the order with them.
3. As regards Mr. Wakefield's charges, they are in accordance with our usual
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
TILLI C.O. 885
السيليس
8
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON