157

H.—7

and there is not a vestige of truth in it. Gentlemen, if I speak warmly on this, it is because I feel warmly. There is one point which did not strike me at the time: lam not so apt to seize on " points" as Mr. Chapman is. I asked the question myself when Mr. Hunter was under examination, and it was why he was not asked as to the thickness of the walls or the quality of the concrete. Mr. Hunter is a man who knows the importance of the question, and was silent about it. He had the width of the walls, and must have known the quality of the concrete; but I would call your attention to the fact that not one question was put to him as to the quality of the concrete. I now come to Mr. Brindley's evidence as to the quality of the concrete. Mr. Brindley has stated in his evidence that he had no complaint as to the quantity of cement that was put into the work. Well, gentlemen, I concur with him as to that, but it is the principal factor in determining the quality of the concrete. There was no stinting of the cement. I have not had time to run through my books, or I would have given you the actual quantities of cement used, and I think you would then have been much astonished to learn the large quantity of cement that has been used in that building at Seacliff. Mr. Brindley's principal objection—and, as I gather from his evidence, his only objection all through—has been to the stone-packing. He has stated frankly that he objects altogether to stone-packing in concrete, and that fact, I think, accounts for his objection. He does not believe in packing in any shape or form, and if he had his way would do away with it, whether it was 6in., 9in., 12in., or 18m. apart. You, gentlemen, know that a contractor does not go into a work merely for the sake of the work, but with the object of making money out of it; and it goes without saying that that was the object with which I undertook the construction of the largest building in New Zealand. Now, it is specified that the concrete is to have packing, as I have shown. I believed that the stone-packing was sufficient distance apart to make a good bed between the joints—quite as good, in fact, as if it had been 18in. apart. However, Mr. Brindley thought differently, and it was put 9in. apart. That, I think, disposes of his objection to the stone-packing. No doubt he did ask me to do away with the stone-packing in the north block, and I said that I was perfectly willing to do so. We had many conversations on the subject, but I always said that I would not do it unless I got an addition to my price for it. Why should I tender in open competition with all New Zealand for this building, and, after undertaking to provide a certain quality of work, be asked to give better work than what I was paid for? That was one of the causes of friction between Mr. Brindley and myself. Therefore I brought several witnesses here to prove the quality of the cement that was used; and you have heard from them how the metal wras measured and afterwards mixed with cement — once dry and twice wet — and then placed in the trenches, and was good concrete. Watkins, and Butcher (the foreman bricklayer) both testify that the concrete was good. Then there is Mr. Forrest, who is certainly an observant man besides being an expert. He saw the concrete after it was in, he having measured the foundations, and he gave it as his opinion—l am not laying great stress on his evidence in this respect —that it was a good article. I now come to charge No. 2 : that I reduced the concrete to benefit myself. That charge, I think, has virtually failed. Mr. Brindley has sworn that he set the foundations out, and that he was satisfied that they w Tould carry the superstructure; he also said that it was done by measurement. Mr. Lawson has also stated, as has Mr. Brindley, that it was done by measurement and paid for by measurement. Mr. Marchbanks has run out some fignres here to show what would be the cost-price of the concrete, taking the cement at £1 per cask and allowing 1-J- casks to the cubic yard. But you will find that my price, considering that the stone was on the ground for cutting, that it was surface-stone, and that there was very little expense needed for cutting it, gave me a very handsome profit indeed. Why should I stint the foundations under these circumstances, when for every cubic yard of concrete that I put in I had a big price for it ? Is it reasonable to suggest that under these circumstances a contractor would reduce the concrete ? On the contrary, I would put concrete all over the building, fill up every room with concrete, if they had asked me, and made a fortune out of it. Every yard of concrete that was reduced was a loss to me, and was it likely, after the expense I had gone to in making a tramway, &c, that I was going to reduce the amount of concrete work to be done, especially, as I have shown, as it was such a paying thing to me ? I think I need say no more about the reduction of the concrete. Now, respecting Mr. Hay's plans, which he said were the same plans, with the exception of some slight alterations, that had been placed before the House of Eepresentatives : Mr. Hay has stated that the cause of the cracking of the building was owing to the foundations of the north ambulatorywall. He said it was the principal but not the sole cause, and he went into calculations in order to show that the foundations as put in are not equal to carrying half the w 7eight that the original plan showed. Now, I tried to ascertain from Mr. Hay, but was unsuccessful, how ho made his calculation, as it appeared to me —and I am quite satisfied of this in my own mind, though I have had many years' experience in taking off quantities, having been trained to the work in an office in the Old Country—that he cannot take the quantities off his plan. How can you get the cubical contents if only two dimensions are given to you ? I say it is impossible from that plan to make such a calculation. I need say no more about it than this : that I think it was wrong for a member of the Public Works Department to have laid such a one-sided plan before ninety-four members of Parliament, not a man of whom, excepting, perhaps half a dozen, can read a plan, much less tell what is indicated by a plan like this, if it can be called such. Then Mr. Hay gave us his opinion, and went into calculations in regard to the ambulatory back wall. How did he take the measure of that wall ? His plan is not correct, and he has admitted that he never measured the thickness of that wall. How then, in the w rorld, is he to arrive at a calculation ? I think I need say no more on that subject. Mr. Brindley has stated that he was perfectly satisfied with the foundations, and that they would carry the superstructure. Regarding the nature of the clay at the north ambulatorywall —where the damage has been done —I may say that to all appearance it is quite as sound and as good as the other clay, with the exception of the part which Dr. Hector describes as having a marl— that is, a limy kind of clay, and that is what did all the injury to our bricks. If you expose it to the surface it will swell up like stone lime. It may have had something to do with the foundations or