183

H.—7

It was shown in evidence that the isolating-drain was put in behind the damaged portion of the building so soon as the first cracks appeared, and that two others of a similar character were put iv subsequently, but that they had little or no effect in preventing settlement. Beyond a passing reference, the Commissioners say nothing about these drains. As they are an essential feature in the case, I submit a drawing showing the original isolating-drain proposed by Mr. Lawson, and the drains actually put in by the Public Works Department, together with the dates at which the several works were executed. It will be seen therefrom that the first drain put in by the Public Works Department is almost identical in every respect with the one proposed by Mr. Lawson, and that the others are in still better positions for effectually intercepting any underflow of water from the high ground. It will also be seen from the drawing that all the ground behind the damaged portion of the building is cut into by both drains and shafts at short intervals. Far more drainage has been given than was ever contemplated under the original scheme, and yet no beneficial results have appeared —a clear proof that "isolating-drains" are not the remedy for the evil. In contradistinction to the thoroughness of the "isolating" drainage which has been provided, I submit other drawings showing the foundation walls as intended by the contract and a they actually exist. It will be seen therefrom that the walls are in no case anything like what they should be; that they are all deficient in width, and that the most of them are deficient in depth as well, the bearing-surface being in every instance seriously reduced. It was also shown in evidence that the settlement had materially diminished or ceased altogether at certain parts of the building where the foundations had been widened. It is scarcely necessary to add that the very essence of a good foundation in bad ground is a large bearing-surface. These facts, and a comparison between the drainage- and foundation-drawings, are alone sufficient to show that the cause of the damage is not the want of the isolating-drain, but the want of proper foundations. Extras. Referring to " the incompleteness of the plans attached to the contract," as regards the walls of the ambulatories, the Commissioners, in paragraph 7, say they " are of opinion that the whole were included in the contract, and that the back and cross walls should not have been treated as an extra." I respectfully submit that the matter should not have been left at this stage, but that the Commissioners should have stated how much was overpaid on account of this and similar work, for the Inspector's evidence on the subject goes far beyond the Commissioners' finding. In giving his reasons for objecting to certify the extra sheet, the Inspector said, " I considered there was not so much concrete put in the place as was shown on the contract-drawings; " and again, in reply to Mr. Gore, ho said, " What I maintain is, that all through there was more concrete shown in the contract drawings than was put in altogether." There was nothing brought forward to refute this evidence of the Inspector, so we must assume it to be correct, in which case the Contractor has been overpaid on the concrete foundations to the extent of £1,764 3s. 9d. Recapitulation. I shall now, in conclusion, give an abstract of the principal points herein brought out. 1. The Commissioners are under a misapprehension in saying that certain letters from the Architect, with reference to the isolating-drain, were not answered for thirty months. It is shown that the letters were answered in writing as well as by action taken. 2. The conclusion with reference to the responsibility of the Public Works Department is based on the assumption that the letters were not answered. As the premises are proved to be incorrect, the conclusion must fall to the ground. 3. The misapprehension with reference to the answering of letters has arisen from the mixing up of two sets of correspondence, one about the isolating-drain and the other about surface-drainage. 4. Up till April, 1881, when Dr. Hector made his last visit to Soacliff, the Architect advocated the isolating-drain; he then abandoned this scheme, and went in for surface-drainage, which was carried out to his own plans. After the 29th March, 1881, no communication was received from the Architect about the isolating-drain till the 12th May, 1884, shortly after the cracks had appeared. 5. I never expressed the opinion that the construction of the isolating-drain should be deferred until the erection of the building was approaching completion. 6. The isolating-drain originally proposed was put in behind the damaged portion of the building so soon as the cracks appeared, and two other drains of a similar character were put in subsequently; but they have had little or no effect in preventing settlement, thus showing that isolating-drains are not the remedy for the evil. 7. The drawings produced show that the foundation walls at the damaged portion of the building have not been carried out according to contract, that the bearing surface has in every instance been seriously reduced. It is also in evidence that the settlement has been stopped or lessened by widening the foundations, thus showing that insufficient foundations are the cause of the damage. 8. The Commissioners find that certain of the ambulatory walls have been erroneously treated as an extra, but they do not give the value of this and other works in the same position. According to the Inspector's evidence the Contractor has been overpaid on the concrete foundations to the extent of £1,764 3s. 9d. W. N. Blair, Assistant Engineer-in-Chief.

[Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, ,£10; printing, oxolusivo of plans (1,375 copies), £126.]

Authority : Qeoegb Didsbuby, Government Printer, Wellington.—lBBB.