CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908 — Page 169

167

of haarkrigs

of appointment, we are disposed to agree with him that the course

which has been adopted of referring the matter to a technical

Committes justifies some of his objections to that procedure. It

seems to us that the memorandum and agreement contemplate that

except in onses of urgent necessity, matters of a technical nature

should be referred to the Consulting Engineers (see paragraphs 10,

11, 15 & 19 of the memorandum referred to). If the question now

involved were one of urgency, giving cause to the Government of

immediate anxiety, and one on which there was not time for corres-

pondence with the Consulting Engineers, it would be natural that

the arrangements contemplated under Mr.Eves appointment should

for the time be abrogated, but if such be not the case the Con-

sulting Engineers could have dealt with it on full reports being

furnished and if necessary could on request make an inspection on

the spot. We observe that Mr.Bves states that in his opinion

there is no urgency in the matter of the bridges and that the test

weighting of Bridge No.4 is still incomplete so that in this

instance at least it is premature to express any opinion. We

would further remark that the present appears to be a case in

which local inspection and investigation may be required by us and as

there are sundry other matters requiring our inspection that we

are ready, if desired so to do, to arrange for a visit to Hong

Kong.

L

2.