CO885-(7-8) — Page 562

86

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

8

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

September 23, 1898. R. 27763.

May 23, 1900. R. 466.

158

We are willing to make the Colony an allowance for this amount, and, in addition, we will allow a further sum of £5 to meet the extra expenses which will be entailed in periodically painting the ironwork.

Enclosure B 2" in No. 38.

COLONIAL SECRETARY, British Honduras, to Crown Agents.

(No. 762/1901.) GENTLEMEN,

Colonial Secretary's Office, Belize, April 24, 1902. I AM directed by the Governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, 11/W./B. Honduras 50, dated the 4th instant, and to tender the thanks of this Government for the action you have taken in the matter of the fencing material supplied by Messrs. Rowell for the August l'ine Ridge Block House on the Mexican frontier.

I have. &c..

Enclosure "C" in No. 38.

HONG-KONG

P. C. CORK,

Colonial Secretary.

1. The instruments referred to were certain brushes and the supplier (Mr. W. F. Stanley) attributed the damage to moth; he, however, refunded the cost.

2. Parts of a printing machine were broken in transit. The makers (Messrs. J. Haddon and Company) stated that the machine was carefully packed, and declined to admit responsibility for the breakages. The price of the machine was £90 (less commission and discount), and the amount of damage as given by the Colonial Govern- ment was $6, cquivalent to 10s. 5d.

3. Breakages of cast iron gutters and pipes. The makers stated that every pre- caution was taken in packing, but that no amount of packing is sufficient to guarantee the safety of these castings if the cases are roughly handled in loading or unloading or if very rough weather is experienced. No evidence or particulars were given by the Colonial Government of imperfect packing, except that the cases arrived intact.

4. A copy is annexed of our reply to the complaint made in this case. No answer has been received.

5. Seven carbon blocks out of 200 were broken in transit. The suppliers stated that the goods were properly packed, but refunded the cost of the broken blocks.

6. Year plugs, costing £2 8s., were sent by post, and were not received by Colony.

7. The suppliers of the diving dresses (which were not inspected) admitted that the wrong dresses were sent, i.e., light dresses as supplied for fisheries, instead of heavy dresses for contract work; they therefore agreed to supply à subsequent order at half price.

8. No communication was sent to us from the Colony about this damage. It is stated that the damage was undoubtedly due to careless stowing, and, if so, a claim should have been made against the ship.

9. Certain carbon cylinders (less than three per cent. of the consignment) were broken in transit, and the Colonial Government represented that they should have been packed in sawdust instead of straw and shavings. The suppliers stated that this was never done, and that the sawdust, however tightly packed, would shake down in transit and leave the top cylinders unprotected; they, however, replaced the broken cylinders free of charge.

10. A copy is annexed of a letter from us explaining when the Mint charge was received.

(No. 317.)

159

CROWN AGENTS to COLONIAL SECRETARY, Hong-Kong.

Hong-Kong-Reqn, 27763.

SIR,

Downing Street, London, September 23, 1898. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, No. 1406, of the 12th August, respecting the cost of inspection of steel joists, and enclosing a copy of a Minute by the Director of Public Works in which the Government of Hong-Kong

concurs.

2. The advantages of inspecting joists are that it insures that they shall be properly straightened and of the specified lengths, free from injurious flaws, correct and regular in sections and weights, and, most important of all, made of suitable metal. Regularity of section is a point of considerable importance, because the strength of a joist, being regulated by the point of lightest section, the metal in the heavier portions is for the most part useless, but has, nevertheless, to be paid for by the Colony, as payment is made by weight. To ensure freedom from the defects indicated above, which are all of common occurrence, we always inspect steel joista in orders of any magnitude, and we consider that such inspection is necessary for the due protection of the purchasers. In doing so we follow, so far as we know, the general practice of engineers in this country.

3. Although as stated by the Director of Public Works, Messrs. Dorman, Long and Company are large manufacturers of steel joists, this does not render it certain that all they supply shall be without defect, and it is certainly not the case that rolling by machinery insures identity of pattern. We believe that all joists are now made in this manner, yet the market is full of rolled joists of every degree of inferiority down almost to the point of worthlessness. The use of machinery is, of course, no guarantee as to the quality of the steel used.

4. For bridge or other important work we think it is absolutely necessary that joists should be inspected, and we think the Colony would run a serious risk were we to omit this precaution. For common work, however, if the Colony is prepared to risk receiving joists which have been rejected by purchasers who inspect, and does not regard the other dangers we have pointed out as of importance, a note should be placed on indents stating that it is desired that inspection may be dispensed with. In dealing with good firms, such as Messrs. Dorman, Long and Company, it is probable that good joists would usually be supplied under such conditions, but there is no guarantee of this, and it will, of course, be understood that should defects be found on receipt of a consignment shipped without inspection, no responsibility would fall upon us.

I have, &c.,

SIR,

(No. 54.)

M. A. CAMERON.

CROWN AGENTS to COLONIAL SECRETARY, Hong-Kong.

Hong-Kong-Coin, 1899.

Downing Street, S.W., May 23, 1900. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 11th April, No. 614, and would refer you to our letter of the 20th of that month, in which we explained that the Mint charge was not received by us until the end of March, and, consequently, could not be paid before that month.

We understand that the delay in rendering the account arose from the division

of labour between the Royal Mint and Messrs. Heaton, which was referred to in our letter of the 26th May, 1899, and that the Deputy Master had no alternative but to wait until the indent was completed before sending in the claim.

We take every possible precaution to ensure that the wishes of Colonial Govern- ments as regards payment within the financial year are complied with, but we cannot control deliveries so as to secure that this is done in every case.

I have, &c.,

M. F. OMMANNEY.

11