CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908 — Page 22

21

and had directed that Mr. Eves should enter into no

contract exceeding $500 in value without reference to

the Governor and examination by the Director of Public

Works. Sir M. Nathan added that he had no great confi- dence in Mr. Eves' capacity to take independent charge of

a work of such magnitude, that he considered Mr. Eves lacked organising power, and that he knew that he did not get on

well with his staff.

The observations of the Consulting Engineers, who had the advantage of discussing the matter with Mr. A. J. Barry (of Barry and Leslie, the second firm of Consulting Engineers employed by the British and Chinese Corporation) who had been in HongKong, will be found in 12314/07.

As a result, the Secretary of State telegraphed that in no circumstances could he agree to construction being placed under the direction of the Director of

Public Works. The matter was subsrquently discussed verbally with Sir F. Lugard in England and an experienced tunnel engineer was sent out to take charge of the

tunnel under Mr. Eves.

3.

We now come to Sir F. Lugard's complaints:-

That Mr. Eves in September 1907 made the

curious proposal that the tunnel work should be handed over to a Mr. King lately a subordinate in a local engineering firm and without railway or tunnelling experience

ience or

or that one of the engineers under hi

Logan

-

Mr. should be allowed to tender for it (see paragraph 5 of 41952/07). As to this the Consulting Engineers

"can only express their astonishment that Mr. Eves should have seriously brought forward the suggestion".

3.

That Mr. Eves assumes an attitude of veiled

antagonism towards the Government and does not properly

realise that he is a servant of the Government and,

apart from the technical conduct of the works, subject

to its instruction.

(a)

As illustrations Sir F. Lugard produces

a Cuse in which, when in the Legislative

Council some unofficial: complained of the slowness

with which the Railway was proceeding, Kr. Eves sent.

As copy of the debate "privately" to the Consulting

Engineers with remarks which he did not communicate

to the Governor.

(b) Mr. Eves' letter of 21st September 1907

(enclosure 3 in 41952/07) as to "nullal training"

which the Governor alleges was "calculated to mislead

the Consulting Engineers" Mr. Eves did not consider

"nullah training" necessary. Under Sir M. Nathan's

instructions, however, he did some work. Then Dr.

Thompson reported that the nullah training as carried

out was a "ridiculous farce", Sir F. Lugard then

inspected the said nullahs with Mr. Chatham and Dr.

Thorpson and instructed Mr. Chatham to undertake the

work. The result was that Mr. Eves wrote to the

Consulting Engineers to the effect that, while the

work was unnecessary, if it was to be done he could do

it as well as the Public Works Department. Before it

was started again however, the Medical Department

came round to the view that it was unnecessary.

(c) Mr. Eyes'letter of 16th September 1907

(enclosure IV or 41952/07) as to the terminus recluna-

3

tion