H.—7

170

statement given in evidence before yon, that on coming to meet Mr. Gore and myself in my own office in order to discuss the final settlement of accounts, he allowed his temper to get so much the better of him as to cause him to walk away and to remain away, presumably in the sulks. Mr. Brindley : Indignant. Mr. Lawson : You can call it that now if you like, but I call it nothing but sulks. The Commissioners can put their own construction on it; I will not say what it was. Ido not want to be too hard on Mr, Brindley. Having dealt point by point with the whole of the evidence, it now remains for me to reply to the last and final accusations brought forward by Mr. W. N. Blair, and he will pardon me if I decline to accept him as the representative in any way of the Public Works Department of New Zealand in this connection. I have proved to you, gentlemen, and can prove still if you wish it, from Mr. O'Connor's letter, that up to the commencement of this inquiry no accusations whatever were formulated against the asylum ; and we havo it in evidence on Mr. Blair's own statement—although he denied it before to-day—that it was in June, 1885, not September or August, but June, 1885, that he first became aware of the defective foundations. Mr. Blair : Where did I state that ? Mr. Lawson : In the first statement you made here. I call for the words recorded by the reporter in the report itself, not as they appear in this printed document, but as they were taken down by the reporter. Do you deny that you said that it was in June, 1885, when you first became aware of it ? I ask you to say whether you did or not ? Mr. Blair : I say I did not. Mr. Lawson • I say you did, and I call for the report. Mr. Blair : I put Mr. Ussher's report in. Mr. Lawson : What I am speaking of is what Mr. Blair himself stated in the opening of the inquiry that it was in June, 1885, he first became aware of the defective foundations. Mr. JMair: Yes, you are right, but that was a mistake ; Mr. Ussher's letter is put in, and that puts the matter right. Mr. Lawson : There it is in his own report, and yet he dares to contradict me. Mr. Blair : I withdraw the remark. Mr. Lawson : He has corrected the report because he sees that in his own report on the damage to the building he says that it could be repaired for £50, though he said he did not. Mr. Blair : You withdrew it. Mr. Lawson : Yes, like a gentleman. I am proving that you called yourself in question and asked me to withdraw what you had said in this report. Gentlemen, how can you believe such a man as this, who dares to come before you and ask me to withdraw the words of his own statement ? Like a gentleman, at the moment, I did it, but I discovered afterwards that I was right after all. Mr. Blair : The word " Juno " should have been " September," that is the whole thing. There is the letter. Mr. Lawson : lie has gone from a portion of his previous statement, and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat anything with reference to this, because I think I have been distinct enough in my previous statement, and anything I have said will be borne out by written documents. Does it not manifest a peculiar spirit on the part of Mr. Blair that ho should twice during the same inquiry have called me to account for quoting his very reports, and have stated that they were untrue —his own words. In none of the letters that I wrote referring to this isolating-drain, nor in any other letter, did I over resile from the position I first took up with regard to it, and I defy Mr. Blair to show anything else. I have always looked upon it as a necessity in the case. I will refer shortly, and very shortly, to the position that Mr. Blair has taken towards Mr. Briudley. He himself admits that he sent for him, that he was in conference with him, and that he knew what evidence he would give before he gave it, and they had arranged, apparently, what evidence should be given. Is that a proper attitude to take? I maintain that it is not, and I maintain that Mr. Brindley was and is a principal in this matter; he is no mere witness, and that he^may find out to his cost. In this matter His Excellency the Governor has inchuled him as one of the parties who may be to blame in it, and Mr. Blair had no right to take that man into his charge when he came here or to deal with him as he has done in this inquiry and during this inquiry. Mr. Brindley should have been more careful in this matter, and he also may find that out to his cost. Mr. Blair has tried to make it appear that he has replied to me through Dr. Hector as to this report. He maintains that, because I noted a report from Dr. Hector—a second report, as he says—it was that, therefore, ho (Mr. Blair) answered my letters. Was ever such a preposterous thing mentioned'? You have only to look at the character of the letter I wrote to Mr. Blair to see that that could bo no possible answer to it. I wound up that letter by asking for special instructions—very urgent instructions, because I referred there to the telegram that it would be necessary to send in connection with that letter. Neither letter, nor telegram, nor instructions of any kind, as I have said before, have I over received from Mr. Blair in connection with that letter. An answer to that letter would be a very different thing from handing me a report of Dr. Hector's, which I perused and noted to be attended to —a very different thing, and I think it is rather asking that you should be imposed upon to ask you to think that Mr. Blair could possibly answer a letter of mine asking for special instructions on a very special -subject by a -report of Dr. Hector's being handed to me simply to peruse and to hand back. As to the position of responsibility thatl occupy as between Mr. Blair and Mr. Brindley, I think I have clearly enough defined that position ; in fact it is not for me to define it, it is defined for us all under the contract, and you dare not, gentlemen, you dare not go beyond that. That is your position. I dare not go beyond it; lam bound by it, as every other party named therein is bound by it. It is no fault of mine if the contract is drawn up wrongly, and the special conditions attached thereto are drawn up wrongly. I am not responsible for that. I never drew them up.; they were drawn up by the Public Works Department, as I have already stated. Mr. Blair has said that irregular settlement in soft ground accounts for the whole of the disturbance there. Irregular settlement in soft ground