133
75
delivery being promised in six months, viz., by the 21st September. This delivery was not realized, owing to trouble with workmen, stormy weather, and other causes. The Consulting Engineers did not, however, consider that the contractors were in any way responsible for the delay in completion of order, and that it was due entirely to causes beyond their control. Final inspection took place on the 1st of February, and the dredger was shipped in the following month.
SIR,
The following table shows how the time was occupied :-
Indent received here
Date
Time
Referred to Consulting Engineers
Specimen and design received
19th September, 1898
21st September, 1898 | |
4th February, 1899 ...
2 days.
Tenders issued
11th February, 1899...
Tenders received
8th March, 1890
1 months,
7 days.
4 weeks
Consulting Engineers' recommendation 18th March. 1899
10 days.
received.
Caltle to Colony
18th March, 1899
Reply received
Order given
21st March. 1899
21st March. 1899
21st September, 1899
days.
6 months,
Final inspection.. .
1st February, 1900
Date of BL
201h March, 1900
10 months.
12 months.
Delivery promised
Enclosure O in No. 34.
CROWN AGENTS to COLONIAL SECRETARY, Straits Settlements.
(No. 542.)
Singapore-Requ. 26570.
Downing Street, London, November 23, 1898.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letters, No. 2840/98, of the 13th May, and 3608/98, of the 9th June last, covering minutes by the Colonial Engineer respecting the ironwork supplied for the Master Attendant's Office in Singa- From these letters it appears that the Colonial Engineer is dissatisfied with
pore.
the manner in which the indent has been executed on grounds stated to be:-
2.
(a.) That certain joists included in the indent were not sent;
(b.) That the joists were not obtained from the firm named in the indent; (e.) That the cost of materials sent was high.
We have already, in our letters to you of the 18th February and 31st March, explained the omission of the joists, but as you again refer to it we fear that we may not have made ourselves clear and will, therefore, at the risk of some repetition, deal with this matter from the beginning.
3. The principal portion of the indent in question was for a verandah consisting mainly of ornamental cast-iron work, but into the construction of which rolled steel joists also entered. The indent was accompanied by a tracing showing the general arrangement and character of the structure required and its position with regard to the building of which it was to form a part. The tracing was more than once referred to in the indent, and it was obvious that indent and tracing were meant to be taken as a whole and used together, so that all the various parts of the verandah-both cast- iron and steel-might be properly adapted to one another. No other view could reasonably have been taken, and had we, as the Colonial Engineer practically sug- gests in paragraph 7 of his letter of the 10th May, ignored the tracing and the refer- ences to it, and dealt with the indent as a series of detached items each one independent of the rest, the Government would have had cause for complaint. Far from the plan
having nothing to do with the point at i-sue," it was indispensable for the proper execution of the indent.
Į
4. Now, against certain steel joists stood a note on the indent--" These are for side verandah entablatures as marked in blue on the plan," which made it evident that they were meant to be part of the verandah structure shown in the tracing. After carefully studying the matter, and making the necessary detailed drawing, both Messrs. Macfarlane and Mr. Wakefield found-and as to the correctness of their opinion there can be no doubt that the girders could not be used where indicated, and that the verandah would be complete without them. They, therefore, concluded that some mistake had been made in preparing the indent, a not unnatural supposition considering the small scale of the tracing and the absence from it of details. Conse- quently Mr. Wakefield considered that the girders should not be scat, and seeing that he had before him for his guidance the note on the indent already quoted, we do not see how he could have come to any other conclusion, for it would have been ridiculous to send materials to form part of the structure knowing that they could not be used in it. Unfortunately he omitted to report that he had arrived at this conclusion, and hence we did not inform the Colony of the omission as we should otherwise have done. For the inconvenience caused by this slip on his part we have already expressed our
"There was no occasion
regret.
5. The Colonial Engineer writes on the 10th May: To be guided by Messrs. Macfarlane's opinion as no part of the indent referred to articles to be supplied by that firm." We do not understand the latter statement, for the requisition consists chiefly of articles to be supplied by Messrs. Macfarlane. As regards the first part of the sentence, as the cast-iron work of which the structure consisted was in the hands of that firm, and they had assisted in working it out in de- tail, and were responsible for its being made to fit properly together, their opinion as to what was or was not necessary for its completion was of the first importance.
6. In paragraph 3 of your letter of the 13th May, you state: "It nowhere appears therein that your Inspector was misled by any erroneous statement on the indent, nor is any erroneous statement quoted." With reference to this I would point out that our letter of the 31st March, in which we stated that our Inspector had been misled by an erroneous statement, was written in reply to yours of the 22nd February. In the enclosure to the latter the Colonial Engineer writes (under date 18th February): The building progressed until the string course on which the roof rests was reached. The roof was designed to be carried on girders, but as they had not arrived work was stopped, and the Crown Agents telegraphed to to ascertain cause of delay. The Crown Agents replied that the girders were being sent, and later an invoice was received with a list, but as the girders mentioned above were not included, they were telegraphed to again, and a reply received that. they thought the girders were not required, and asking they are now to be sent." This made it appear clear that the girders were required to support the roof of the building, and such being the case it was evident that the note on the indent stating that they formed part of the verandah was wrong, Hence, we wrote to you that our Inspector appeared to have been misled by an efroneous statement on the indent. Had there been no such statement he would of course have recognised that the joists were not for the verandah but for some other part of the building, and they would have been sent.
The two
7. Since writing to you in the above sense on the 31st March, we have, however, received a copy of the Colonial Engineer's letter of the 10th May, from which it ap pears that the joists were after all for the verandah, and not for the roof. Statements appear irreconcilable, and we cannot tell which is correct, but we must observe that if the joists were originally intended for the verandah as stated on the indent, then unquestionably they were superfluous, and the omission to send them was right. If, on the other hand, they were for the roof as stated by the Colonial Engineer on the 18th February, then the note on the indent was wrong, and this error was the cause of their omission, and the resulting incongenience.
8. As I have been obliged to quote the above passage from the Colonial Engineer, I would, in passing, point out that it does not quite correctly represent what passed. From its wording it would be understood that the telegram sent to us referred speci- fically to the roof girders, and that our reply did the same, and was, therefore, in- correct. Your first telegram to us, however, ran thus:-"Referring to my letter of the 21st July, requisition 69, urgently required," to which we replied "Balance indent No. 69 shipped 14th December and 28th December." Both telegrams obviously refer to the requisition as a whole and not to any particular part of it. It was not until your second telegram, a month later, that the girders were mentioned.
་
PUBLIE RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON