66
118
take the place of inspection during manufacture and before shipment. Enough has been said in the case of pipes and cement by ourselves and by Mr. Stanger to show that inspection on delivery does not ensure the supply of good and sound articles. It must also be remembered that the difficulty of rejection is enormously increased by postponing inspection until delivery. When it is carried out at the manufacturer's works he is in the best position to make good, or break up, or otherwise dispose of re- jeoted articles, and his loss is thus comparatively small, moreover, the inspeetor is, as a rule, known to him as an authority on whose fairness he can rely, and he knows, therefore, that he is not being vexatiously or capriciously treated. In consequence serious difficulty rarely arises, and the loss of time is as small as possible. But when the maker has incurred heavy expense in sending his goods to a distant part of the world, where they will probably, if rejected, be unsaleable unless at further serious outlay on freights, the case is very different. The Inspector is probably unknown to the manufacturer, who has, therefore, no guarantee of fair treatment. In such cir- cumstances it would be only in a very glaring case of inferior supplies that the maker would accept the rejection without a long struggle, if, indeed, he did so at all. Even then the delay in obtaining a fresh consignment must be excessive. The Engineer in charge of the works knowing all this must feel that in rejecting materials to any considerable extent he is practically stopping his works, and he is thus under great pressure to accept articles which, if time were no object, he would refuse to receive.
119
Enclosure D in No. 34.
GIBRALTAR.
(1.) Grate for Police Department—
Letter
Colonial Secretary`
Estimate forin to Blakemore ...
Estimate from Blakemora
Acceptance sent
Goods due
Shipped ........
Receipt.
Date.
January 4, 1900
January 13, 1900
January 25, 1900
January 9, 1900,
January 27, 1900
February 6, 1900
March 30, 1900,
Messrs. Blakemore exceeded contract time by 52 days, explained on the ground that the patterns had got dilapidated, and had to be renewed. The grate was of an unusual size, 39 ins. by 39 ins., and had to be specially made.
(2.) Range for Gardener's quarters—
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 885
8
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NÓT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
Mr. W. H. STANGER to CROWN AGENTS.
Extract.
August 11, 1896.
24. The Board is of opinion (paragraph 16, page 16) " that in the case of ordinary trade articles inspection during manufacture or prior to shipment, would simply mean a piling up of fees and expenses without benefit to the Colony," and as they have not had Portland Cement inspected it is evident that they consider it an ordinary trade article.
above.
25. This view is further suggested in paragraph 18, page 17, already quoted 26. The Engineer of the Water Works shares the opinion of his Board; as in his specification for Portland Cement he says nothing about inspection during manu. facture.
27. His views on this question are in direct contradiction to the practice of, I may say, all the leading Engineers of this country.
28. It is within my personal knowledge that Engineers such as Sir Benjamin Baker, K.C.M.G., Mr. John Wolfe Barry, C.B., Messrs. Coode, Son & Matthews, Sir Charles Gregory and Eyles, Messrs. Hawkshaw & Sons, and others as well as the several Civil Departments of the Admiralty, the War Office, the India Office, and many Corporations, Public Bodies, and Contractors, insist upon a rigid inspection of Portland Cement during manufacture.
29. I am unaware of any special circumstances in the case of the Barbados Water Works that justify a departure from a practice that has been found necessary by the above mentioned authorities in dealing with works of a similar character under their control.
30. I have in my possession specifications for Portland Cement issued by emi- nent Engineers in which the several conditions are in harmony with each other, and in every one of these inspection at the works is imperative.
Letters.
Colonial Secretary
Estimate form to Blakemore...
Estimate from Blakemore
Acceptance sont
Estimate cancelled by Blake- more owing to mistake anl
second estimate sent. Acceptance
Goods due
Shipped
Date.
Receipt.
March 24, 1900
March 30, 1:400,
April 4, 1900
April 11, 1900
April 17, 1900,
}
April 18, 1900
April 30, 1900
May 2, 1900
May 12, 1900
May 25, 1900
Contract time was exceeded by 13 days. About a fortnight was lost by Messrs. Blakemore's mistake in estimating for "Colonial" range instead of “Colonist."
(3.) Linoleum-
Letter.
Colonial Secretary .
...
Date.
Receipt.
September 19, 1900 September 24, 1900,
Received through Colonial Office, who instructed Crown Agents to consult Lady White. This was done September 28, 1900, and reply received October 1, 1900. Estimate form then sent to Messrs. Hampton on October 5, 1900, returned October 23, 1900, through an A. D. C. attending Lady White. Estimate showed excess over our authority, and matter was, therefore, referred to Colonial Office on October 26, 1900, and approval was received on October 29, 1900, instructions sent to firm on October 30, 1900. Delivery due November 19, 1900, goods shipped November 23, 1900.
This linoleum was only one item out of many in the same order.
120
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.