165

H.—7

point is quite unimportant, and I laid no stress on it cither way. I mentioned it, however, because it is the only point in which my evidence has even the appearance of being incomplete. As to the statement made by me —" scamping bricks :" I come to the relations between the Architect, the Contractor, and the Inspector. The evidence and the correspondence all through bear out my statement that the Inspector had not been properly backed up, As Mr. Brindley, in one of his letters, puts it, the system in vogue was clearly that of "arrangement," or "this was understood," or "that was intended." There was far too much of this system in connection with the work. The bad work seems to have been done either in open defiance of Mr. Brindley or during his absence, when ho could not be present at that particular point of the work ; and when work that was not up to the mark was so carried, the Architect clearly did not insist on Mr. Brindley's views being adhered to or his position properly recognised. Mr. Brindley states in his evidence that, beyond these mild letters which were written to him by Mr. Lawson, he was not backed up by him. That letter of Mr. Gore, junior's, to Mr. Brindley touches off the position very nicely. After an ostensible condemnation of bricks in the presence of myself, Mr. Gore seems to have interviewed the Architect, and claims to have got a remission of the sentence. I will read the letter, which runs thus :" I saw Mr. Lawson to-day, and asked him about the bricks, and he said that he thought at the time that some of them would do, but did not say anything before Mr. Blair, but thought to leave that to you. He says you may let them use the best burnt of them, and I am to get the other kiln burnt as soon as possible. So you will please let them pick out the best of them." I may add that the only satisfactory point in connection with it—and that is of a personal nature—is that the shadow of Mr. Blair, even at a distance, had a slightly deterring influence. That Mr. Lawson unduly favoured or was unduly lenient with the Contractor is shown in the final " squaring-up." Ido not for a moment say that contractors should not be dealt with liberally in the settling-up of a contract and the payment of any extras that have been incurred ; I think they should have the benefit of the doubt. But, according to Mr. Brindley, there w ras not any doubt in this case. The position taken up by Mr. Brindley was very strong; he left the interview in a rage, because Mr. Lawson was conceding too much to Mr. Gore; and not only did he verbally protest against the amount given to Mr. Gore in the final certificate, but ho also protested in writing. That letter is before the Commissioners. Mr. Brindley says in it: " Lunatic Asylum Building, Seacliff, 3rd June, 1884. —. .. . The summarysheet, showing deductions from contract sums, as allowed by Mr. Gore, viz., £1,214, and other figures of same is in accordance with an offer made by Mr. Lawson to Mr. Gore a few days back, when going over account with a view to settlement of same. Such offer is, in my opinion, more than should be given, and I hereby enter my protest against it. The deductions allowed by Mr. Gore are only about half what they should be [see summary-sheet attached] . In fact, above offer is about equal to taking Gore's figures for extras and deductions; for there is no doubt in my mind that though £1,366 [as per sheet 9 attached] was taken off Mr. Gore's original account, such amount, or even more, was put on to cover any deductions that might be made. As a fact, after seeing a rough draft of deductions that I had forwarded to Mr. Lawson, Mr. Gore's account made a jump from £5,976 to £8,480 I" I shall now refer under this head to the position of the Architect and the Inspector. Instead of confining the Inspector's duty to inspection, as ought to have been done —the duty for which he w 7as employed—Mr. Lawson seems to have placed him in the position of both Architect and Inspector ; to have throw 7n the whole thing into his hands, and to have interfered as little as he could. In fact, wo have it in evidence that Mr. Lawson seldom visited the w~orks, and that when he did visit the works his stay was only in the interval between two of the trains, seldom over the whole day. I have also clearly shown that Mr. Brindley's time was largely occupied in preparing working drawings that ought to have been prepared by Mr. Lawson. Mr. Lawson, when I cross-examined him, said that he had prepared some fifty detailed drawings. I a,sked him to produce them, but nothing lias been produced, except these three or four little scraps in Mr. Brindley's possession ; whereas Mr. Brindley has produced a perfect sheaf of them —some twenty-five sheets of elaborate drawings—made by himself; in fact, practically Mr. Lawson prepared no detailed drawings whatever, and as the contract-drawings were on such a small scale and so indefinite and contradictory, Mr. Brindley had not only to prepare detailed drawings, but he had to prepare what he calls "working-drawings"—drawings to a larger scale than those supplied him. Mr. Lawson's statement with reference to these detailed drawings was most positive. He said that he would allow no Inspector |to prepare detailed drawings for him; yet he did not produce or show that he had prepared any details, except these two or three scraps that Mr. Brindley produced and which Mr. Brindley says had not been worked to, or could not be worked to. It seems to mo perfectly clear that the time occupied by Mr. Brindley in preparing these drawings should not have been paid for by the Government; and not only did the Government lose Mr. Brindley's time, which is a small matter, but they lost his services whilst ho was so engaged preparing these drawings—they lost his time in inspecting the works: a matter of far graver importance. The Seacliff Asylum is one of the most important buildings ever erected by the Government. The Public Works Department employed an architect of high repute to design and carry out this work, and ho was paid the highest commission ever paid in the colony. In going so far, the department did the best thing that could be done. But, unfortunately, the Architect did not follow up this principle, nor fulfil what was expected of him. Instead of devoting a large portion of his time to the work, he left practically the whole matter in the hands of an Inspector, who already had too much to do. Instead of acting on the warnings ho had received about the necessity for extra good foundations in the north wing, he left the thing to chance; and when the Inspector complained of the difficulty of getting good work he practically did nothing beyond asking the Inspector to work amicably with the Contractor. It was the Architect's duty—his clear duty— under these circumstances to have had more Inspectors put on. He would have got them for the asking, but he never made a sign. I claim that my fifth contention is established, that the foundations throughout the damaged portion of the building are all defective ; that they are much smaller than shown on the contract; and that the work and material are faulty in the