Eus. 8.
Hon Col. Secy.,
C. O.
32728
297!
RECE
P
7 SEP 08.
Infora C.R.E. please that his Meao will be sent home
with the Committee's report.
upon it:-
I make the following observations
Para. 2:- Infers that borings were sade subsequently (tho' not
when the designs went). Is this the fact? It is sufficiently obvious that a report on foundations should be made after borings and
not when the founds are already excavated. No one suggested this.
I cannot see
Para. 3:- The Contractors did urge piling.
how this could be a defence of their own action. The first and
second of the points the points put forwar} by Mr. Eves amount
to an accusation of dishonourable conduct on the part of Mr. Williams.
His Honour and his professional reputation were concerned to give a
true and impartial judgement on the Engineering questions submitted
to him, the charge is that he allowed himself to be biassed. I know
of no reason why he should be biassed in favour of Mr. Chatham's view
rather than that of Mr. Eves. The latter accompanied the
Committee and no doubt put his views fully before Mr. Williaas.
The third point adxits "a failure", - hitherto Mr. Eves has denied this.
His previous minutes were to the affect that the matter was exceedingly
trivial,-that no expert report was needed, that I was unduly alarued,
&c. He, I presume, brought the points he notes to the consideration
of the Committee though it is not clear how they could see cracks behind
when the bank had already reached the Abutment wall. He admits that
Bridge No. 4 requires to be made safe. I have hitherto understood
him to assert that it was now safe.
The Bridge 7. Mr Eves condemns Messrs Leigh & Orange's work, but was
not each section of irpassed by himself? He told me on my inspection
that L. & 0. could not be held responsible for this reason. Binal Para:- The construction of super-structure has not been found
fault with.
It is therefore needless to assert its excellence.
6.8.08.
(53)
F.D.L.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.