E.—B.

DEFECTIVE RAILWAY WAGONS (PAPERS RELATING TO).

Laid upon tlie Table ly the Hon. Mr. Dick, with, the leave of the House.

The Engineer in Chaege, Middle Island, to the Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Sir,— Public Works Office, Wellington, 21st July, 1880. In accordance with your instructions, I have the honor to submit the following report with reference to the question of: defective wagons on the Middle Island Eailways. Accuracy of former Statements. To me, the most important phase of the whole question is the serious reflections that have been cast on my veracity. I shall therefore refer to this point first, and show, in the most conclusive manner, that those reflections are perfectly groundless. On the 29th June a question to be asked by Mr. Barron in the House was referred to me for report in the usual way; the question and my reply thereto being as follow: — Question. —"Mr. Barron to ask the Minister for Public Works, with reference to the following portion of the Eeport of the Eoyal Civil Service Commission, page 6: —' Wagons built by contract in Dunedin were delivered in Christchurch at the end of last year in a state thus described by a witness : " Some of these were disgraceful; bad workmanship, bad timber; the timber was unseasoned, stringy-bark was put in instead of iron-bark ; the joints were not properly made. . . . Some of them had the bottom frames held up only by the nails in the flooring boards. . . . Some of them we have had almost to rebuild within six weeks "': (1) The name of the contractor for such wagons • (2) under the sujiervision of which department was the contract carried out, and who was at the time, and is now,, the responsible head of that department; (3) who passed the work, and under whose certificate did the contractor obtain payment for such wagons ? " " Wellington, 29th June, 1880. Reply. —"No wagons built by contract under this department at Dunedin were delivered in Christchurch at the end of last year, and I believe the same remark applies to the Eailway Department. The last contract for wagons in Dunedin was finished in August, 1877, consequently they had been running'for thirteen months before the line to Christchurch was opened, and nearly two and a half years before the date referred to. I may add that, so far as wagons built under the supervision of this department in Dunedin at any time are concerned, there is not the slightest ground for thinking them defective: they have in every instance been well made, with proper materials. As the proposition laid down in asking the questions is incorrect, they cannot, of course, be answered otherwise than as above. " W. N. Blair, "Engineer in Charge, Middle Island." Eeferring to this reply, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission said," The statements there made are, whether wilfully or carelessly so, every one of them incorrect." My answer is simply that such is not the case, the statement made by me is true and correct in every particular; and I submit the following proofs in support of this assertion : — A statement is enclosed herewith, certified to by the Accountant of this department, which shows, — 1. That there have been no wagons built by contract in Dunedin since August, 1877, the date given in my reply. 2. That the last deliveries of wagons built by contract anywhere south of the Waitaki were thirteen, delivered at Invercargill in July, 1878, sis months before the through line to Dunedin was opened ; and one wagon, delivered at the same place in July, 1879. 3. That the only other rolling-stock of any kind whatever, built by contract south of the Waitaki, delivered since the through line was opened, is six cattle and sheep trucks, and eight brake-vans, delivered in Invercargill between January and July, 1879. /

1880. NEW ZEALAND.

E.—B.

4. That the only contract for wagons at Oamaru was the one with McNab and Aimers, finished on the 11th November, 1875. Some covered-goods and sheep-vans and horseboxes were made there in 1877, but no complaints have been made about this class of stock. These facts are, in themselves, sufficient to prove the correctness of my original statement; but I will go further, and submit evidence to the same effect from the documents submitted by Mr. Allison Smith to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, in confirmation of his previous evidence. On the Ist May, 1879, Mr. Smith, writing to Mr. Conyers, and referring apparently to defective rollingstock, says, "Of course I am not in a position to say exactly by whom the stock was built." Tinder date the Ist July, 1880, the following certificate is made to Mr. Smith by Inspector Abell and Foreman Anderson : " Having seen your evidence before the Civil Service Commission as to the condition of new rolling-stock built south of Palmerston about January, 1879, we beg hereby to certify to the correctness of your statement, with the exception that we cannot positively state by whom the stock was built." On the 30th June, 1880, Mr. Inspector Abell sendsMr. Smith a sketch of the tenoning in three wagons then at Addington, and says, "Wagons were being made of unseasoned stringy-bark (timber) in Dunedin railway-shops, Ist September, 1878. I saw these wagons being constructed." In a foot-note to this letter, Mr. Smith states that these are the wagons referred to in his memorandum to the Acting Commissioner of the 27th Eebruary, 1879, and in Inspector Abell's report of the 30th June, 1879. This evidence points to an entirely different conclusion from the one arrived at in the report of the Civil Service Commission, which says that the wagons were built by contract, and it also goes a long way to prove the correctness-of the most important part of my statement. In fact Mr. Allison Smith admits that his evidence on this point is secondhand, not of his own knowledge, and he now practically withdraws it. In his letter of the Ist July to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, read in the House, he says, " In reply to your telegram just received, asking me to explain my statement made when under examination by the Civil Service Commissioners, I have the honor to state that the only question upon which there seems to be the slightest doubt is, by whom was the stock really constructed? Now, I beg to explain that my assertion that the stock was built by the Public Works Department was based upon a letter written by the Locomotive Engineer at Dunedin, in which it was stated that the wagons were built by the Public Works Department, and for the bad work in which 'he was not responsible ;' and this letter was indorsed to me by the Commissioner for Bailwavs." The same admission is made by Mr. Smith in his telegram to you of the Ist instant. Again, under date the 19th instant, Mr. Smith sends you what he states to be " a full account of every particular within my knowledge in connection with the wagons." Independently of the fact that no wagons were built by contract in Dunedin during the period in question, this report shows clearly that the wagons complained of had been built in the Dunedin workshops. We must therefore conclude that the evidence originally before the Commissioners was imperfect or incorrect; so any conclusions based -on it must necessarily partake more or less of the same character. My original report contained the following statement: "So far as wagons built under the supervision of this department in Dunedin at any time are concerned, there is not the slightest ground for thinking them defective ; they have in every instance been well made, with proper materials." With reference to this assertion, 1 have simply to say that it is in every way correct. I speak from my own knowledge. All the wagons that were built by contract in Dunedin for the General Government were built under my direct supervision, so I am quite prepared to take all responsibility connected with them. During the many years I have occupied important official positions in New Zealand, my character for truthfulness has never before been impugned. I have just shown that the reflections now cast on mo are perfectly groundless, that I gave a correct, straightforward answer to a plain statement. I beg, therefore, that you will take such steps as are necessary to remove the imputation that rests on me. , . Inspection of Bolling-stock. Prom the discussion that has arisen on the wagon question, it is evident that some misunderstanding prevails with reference to the parties responsible for the quality of rolling-stock in the various districts, so it is necessary that I should make the matter clear. Before the railway-workshops were erected in Dunedin, all the rolling-stock in that district was built under my supervision as District Engineer, but since the shops were erected, and more particularly since March, 1878, when the working of the railways was separated from the construction, nearly all the stock has been erected by daylabour in the Government; workshops, and under the the entire control of the officers of the Bailway Department. This is the reason why no wagons have been erected by contract at Dunedin since 1877. The same system also obtains at Christchurch, with the exception of a special contract, under which the contractor imported the ironwork himself, all the wagons now are erected in the railway-workshops. In short, the construction officers have had nothing whatever to do with anything made in the shops since they were established. With reference to wagons erected by Messrs. McNab and Aimers, of Oamaru, to which Mr. Smith refers in his telegram to you of the Ist July, they were erected in 1875, under the supervision of the Besident Engineer there, who, at that time, was altogether independent from Dunedin. This, taken in connection with what has previously been said, shows that there is no ground for the impression that I am responsible for the defective wagons, or that I have taken the responsibility on myself. Nature of Allegations. I wish to direct your particular attention to the nature of the allegations that have been made with reference to the quality of the wagons. The statement in the Commissioners' report is plain enough. It says, " Wagons built by contract in Dunedin were delivered in Christchurch at the end of last year in a state thus described by a witness : . . . ' Some of them we had almost to rebuild within

2

E.—B.

six weeks.' " The main point in this allegation, aud which seems to have been somewhat overlooked in the discussion, is the combined statement that the wagons had been built by contract, and that they were so faulty as to require rebuilding within six weeks. If the statement is bisected its meaning is entirely altered, and it loses its force altogether. Thus, if wagons built by contract are only found to be defective after running for some years, the original defects could not have been serious, and the chances are that the defects are mainly due to ordinary tear and wear, or insufficient maintenance. Again, if wagons built by day-labour in lhe Government workshops are found to be defective when turned out, it is simply evidence of carelessness or incompetency on the part of the officers and workmen. Nothing more serious can be implied, for no one has any pecuniary interest in making bad work; on the contrary, the more labour that is put on the better for those concerned. The statement, however, as it stands is of a much more serious character; it clearly implies connivance at bad work on the part of the officer who supervised it, to the benefit of the contractor who was carrying it out, or possibly to the benefit of both. I ought to notiee here,a difference between the address of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and the report of the Commission. The address says: "We do not say where or when these wagons were built; we simply say those delivered in Christchurch about the end of last year were in a disgraceful state :" but the report (page 6) distinctly says, " Wagons built by contract in Dunedin." The discrepancy is probably due to a want of precision in some of the statements made by the Locomotive Engineer, Christchurch, since his original evidence was given. Nature and Extent of Defects. I shall hereinafter show that I am in no way responsible for the defective wagons referred to in the report of the Civil Service Commission, so it is not my duty either to censure or excuse those who are responsible. In order, however, to make the matter clearer, and as you have asked me to report on the whole question, it is necessary that I should refer not only to the nature and extent of the defects, but also to their probable cause. The wagon stock at present in the Middle Island numbers upwards of 4,000. I have analyzed all the statements made in the documents to which I have had access, and find that thirty-six wagons are stated in general terms to be defective, and of these a specific description of defects is given iu six cases, the latter being the wagons referred to in the report of the Civil Service Commission. I have not, of course, seen the minutes of the oral evidence submitted to the Commission, and I have had no opportunity of personally examining the wagons themselves ; consequently my ideas of the nature and extent of the defects are formed from the written evidence and the report, and an inspection of the pieces of framing now in Wellington, together with information sent me by the officers of this department. The evidence quoted in. the report, and most of the statements subsequently made by Mr. Smith, are of too general a character to admit of minute investigation, more particularly as many of the points referred to are, to a great extent, matters of opinion. Eor instance, there is a note by Mr. Smith, on one of the defective pieces of framing, to the effect that the tenons should be 1-J inches long, and he sends a sample of how framing ought to be made. The specification prepared by the late Engineer-in-Chief, under which all the wagon contracts were carried out, says, " The longitudinal frames are to be stubtenoned half an inch into cross-frames." It is unnecessary to add that the specification provides all that is required. I ought perhaps to explain further that elaborate mortising and tenoning is not an essential in the framing of a railway-wagon : work of this kind is not sufficient to resist the severe strains to which the vehicle is subjected; consequently the connections depend almost entirely on the heavy bolts, through rods, and angle irons. The strongest evidence of defects in ihe wagons that I have seen is the specimens of framing now in Wellington. With reference to the piece of a headstock from wagon No. 1670, this is a case of excessive shrinkage in the timber, which had evidently been used in a very green state : there is no fault to be found with the workmanship. In No. 1595 or 599, both the timber and workmanship are defective. Although the defects in the workmanship are considerably aggravated by the shrinkage of the timber, it is evident that the joint was never good, particularly on one side, where the mortise is now half an inch wider than the tenon. No. 1515 is a very curious case : the tenon seems first to have been worked in the usual way, and then cut close off. There was no object in this, for the mortise was large enough to receive it, and no labour has been saved. I can only account for it on the supposition that this is not the original framing, but a piece inserted in repairing the wagon, the tenon being cut off to avoid pulling the whole vehicle asunder. With reference to the wagons alluded to by Mr. Smith in his telegrams to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, of dates the Ist and 10th July, the District Engineer, Christchurch, reports that the defects are chiefly the result of unseasoned timber having been used, but that the shrinkage in most cases is not greater than might be expected in using ordinary Australian timber not specially seasoned. A similar statement is made by Eoreman Anderson, of Christchurch, in his last annual report to Mr. Smith. In reference to the Dunedin and Invercargill wagons, he estimates that 25 per cent, of the repairs are due to " the fact of green timber being used in the building of them." So far as using green timber is concerned, I ought perhaps to remind you that the supply of wagons was the burning question iu connection with the southern railways for several years : large numbers had frequently to be supplied at short notice. I should, therefore, not be surprised to learn that it was sometimes impossible to get the proper timber in time. Another probable cause of defects in the wagons is the want of proper attention in maintaining them. This is apparent from the annual report made on the 30th June, 1879, to Mr. Smith, by Poreman ilnderson. Beferring to the Dunedin-Invercargill rolling-stock, the report says, "The repairs to this stock, both carriages and wagons, have been very heavy on account of being allowed to run much too long. If sundry repairs had been made to them in time a considerable saving would have been the result." ~..,

3

E.—B.

As to Who is responsible for the Defective Wagons. So far as defects arising from insufficient maintenance are concerned, there is no difficulty infixing the responsibility in the proper quarter. Nobody has to do with the wagons after they are built but the officers of the Working Eailways Department, consequently they alone are responsible for keeping them in proper repair. There has been some little difficulty in tracing the history of tho wagons complained of, chiefly on account of the want of precision in the statements made by Mr. Allison Smith at different times. Por instance, in his telegram to you of the Ist instant, read in the House, he says, " When stock at Oamaru was taken over by Canterbury it was in miserable order. A number of wagons bearing McNab and Aimer's brand —the very wagons received from Dunedin at end of 1878 and beginning of 1879 —were disgraceful, —bad work and very inferior timber." Now, this is the only reference to McNab and Aimer's wagons that I can find in the whole of the papers, and the firm's brand does not appear on any of the wagons, or pieces of wagons, examined for or by me. Purthermore, Mr. Smith's statements clearly show that the wagons he specially complained of were built in the Dunedin workshops. I have also ascertained that all McNab and Aimer's wagons were distinctly branded when they left their hands. Another inconsistency in the telegram is the statement that the stock referred to was taken over by Canterbury at Oamaru, and a few lines further on it is said that these very wagons had come from Dunedin at the end of 1878 or beginning of 1879. As a matter of fact the Oamaru stock was taken over by Canterbury on the completion of the line between Christchurch and Oamaru in February, 1877, nineteen months before the line between Dunedin and Oamaru was opened. I should also add that Mr. Allison Smith did not join the Canterbury railway staff until a short time after the line was completed to Oamaru, consequently he can scarcely speak of the state of the rolling-stock from his own knowledge. Since writing the above, I have seen Mr. Smith's telegram to you of the 20th, in which he points out a mistake in his telegram of the Ist, which entirely alters its sense. He says, "It should read fullpoint after McNab and Aimer's," and commence another sentence: "Tho new wagons received from Dunedin, &c."; and, in another telegram of the same date, he says, " Your telegram to me of Ist instant specified that you required the contractor's name that had built bad wagons, and I mentioned McNab and Aimer's as being the worst wagons that had been built by contract. These were all repaired or rebuilt before the line was opened to Dunedin, and have no bearing upon this question. At the same time, perceiving that you were under a misapprehension, I telegraphed the following in order that the responsibility might be fixed : ' The new wagons received from Dunedin at end of 1878 and beginning of 1879,' " &c. This certainly puts the matter in a new r light, but it is not quite satisfactory, for some of the specimens now in Wellington are labelled as from Oamaru. Although it has been somewhat troublesome, I have succeeded in tracing almost exactly the history of the wagons in which the defects are particulary specified. No. 1402 was built in the Dunedin railway workshops by day-labour. This is the wagon of which it is said "that it was literally tumbling to pieces." It was not built by contract. No. 1602 was built in the Dunedin workshops by day-labour, not by contract. This wagon is described as being in the same state as the preceding one. Another wagon, no number given, condition much as above; built in Dunedin workshops by daylabour. No. 1670, a sample of the headstock of which is now in Wellington, was built in the Dunedin workshops by day-labour. No. 1515. A portion of the framing in Wellington. In his telegram to you of the 20th instant, Mr. Smith says that both this and 1595 came from Dunedin when comparatively new, and that they belong to the same batch as Nos. 1402 and 1602. Mr. Armstrong, on the other hand, asserts positively that he " had nothing to do with the building of this wagon." I have evidence which proves beyond doubt that it was not built by contract; so the matter rests entirely between Messrs. Armstrong and Smith. No. 1595. A portion of tho framing in Wellington. Mr. Smith, in his telegram to you, says tbat this wagon came from Dunedin with No. 1515. He refers to it now as having " only been built eighteen months;" but Mr. Armstrong disclaims any connection with it, and the specimens are lahelled as from Oamaru. If from Oamaru, the wagon, must now be four and a half years old. I cannot trace this wagon any further, but, from the marks still visible, it is proved not to have been built by contract at Dunedin at all, and not to have been built by contract at Invercargill, at any rate within the last four years. In case it turns out to be an Oamaru wagon, built by McNab and Aimers, I should explain that these wagons were built between September and November, 1875, and that they had been used in the construction of the Moeraki Section before running the traffic, consequently they would in all probability be considerably out of repair; also that special permission was given to the contractors by the Superintending Engineer for the Middle Island, Mr. Higginson, to use blue-gum in five wagons, as they were wanted in a great hurry for Messrs. Brogden's contract. On the completion of Messrs. McNab and Aimer's contract, Mr. Lowe, the Besident Engineer, certified that the work had been " fairly done;" so I have every confidence in assuming that there were no defects in the wagons when they left the contractors' hands. With reference to the wagons now at Addington, I have had them carefully examined by the Inspector of Anderson's rolling-stock contract, who had been formerly engaged on the Dunedin contracts. Seven of them are identified as having been built in the Dunedin workshops, and one belongs to the Wagon Company, but most of the others cannot readily be traced. It is, however, quite clear that none of them have been built by contract within the last four or five years. The Inspector can only identify one wagon as having been built by contract under the Public Works Department, and that wagon is not defective; beyond ordinary tear and wear it is quite good.

4

E.—B.

I have now exonerated both myself and the officers under me from all blame in the matter of the defective wagons referred to in the Eeport of the Civil Service Commission. We have simply had nothing whatever to do with them, and the present inquiry has resulted in transferring the responsibility to the officers of the Working Eailway Department, who had thrown the responsibility on us. Mr. Smith now makes this point quite clear. In his report to you of the I.7th instant he distinctly states that his original evidence as to the defective wagons having been made by contract was given on the authority of the Commissioner of Bailvvays, Middle Island, and the Locomotive Engineer, Dunedin, and at the same time he shows that they have been in reality made at the Dunedin workshops by daylabour, thus proving the statement of those gentlemen to be incorrect. Summary of Conclusions. In order to make the whole question perfectly clear, I shall now summarize the principal conclusions arrived at in this report. 1. That the statements made by me in my report of the 29th June are true and correct in every particular. 2. That no wagons built by contract in Dunedin were delivered in Christchurch at the end of last year in a faulty condition. 3. That no wagons built by contract anywhere in the Middle Island had to be almost rebuilt within six weeks. 4. That the only contract for wagons at Oamaru was tho one with McNab and Aimers, finished in November, 1875. 5. That the officers of the Public Works Department are in no way responsible for work done in the railway-workshops. 6. That, out of a total of 4,000 wagons, about thirty-six are alleged in general terms to be defeciive, and of these a specific description of defects is given in six cases. 7. That the defects are chiefly caused by shrinkage of the unseasoned timber used in the construction of the wagons. 8. That five out of the six wagons in which the defects are specifically described have been built in the railway-workshops by day-labour. 9. That the sixth wagon is asserted to have been built in the same way, but the evidence on this point is not conclusive. It is, however, proved that this wagon was not built by contract in Dunedin, and if built by contract at Oamaru it is now four and a half vears old. 10. That the evidence given to the Eoyal Commission by Mr. Allison Smith, to the effect that the defective wagons w*ere built by contract in Dunedin, was given on the authority of the Commissioner of Bailways, Middle Island, and the Locomotive Engineer, Dunedin ; and thpt Mr. Smith now shows that evidence to be incorrect. I have, &c, W. N. Blaie, Engineer in Charge, Middle Island.

Statement of Wagon Rolling- Stock erected South of the Waitaki River, under Contract with the Public Works Department, current on and entered into since 30th June, 1875.

Public Works Office, W. A. Thomas, Wellington, 27th July, 1880. Accountant, Public Works. * 13 low-Bide wagons on or before 31st July, 1878 ; 1 low-side wagon in July, 1879 ; 4 horse-boxes, 2 cattle-trucks, and 6 timber-trucks, on or before 27th December, 1878; 2 cattle-trucks, 4 covered-goods vans, and 8 brake-vans, in or before July, 1879. f Built under a contract for the supply of stock for the Foxton to New Plymouth Railway. Note. —The through line was opened from Christchurch to Oamaru on lßt February, 1877; Oamaru to Dunedin on 6th September, 1878 ; Dunedin to Invercargill on 22nd January, 1879. W. N. Blaie, Engineer in Charge, M.I. 2—E. 8.

5

Contractor. Where Built. Description of Stock. Date of Contract. Date of Delivery of Wagons. Campbell Brothers ... Peter Dey Winton Invercargill 50 low-side wagons ... 46 covered-goods wagons, 15 cattle-wagons, 20 sheep-vans, and 2 horse-boxes 2 goods brake-vans 2 brake-vans and 10 low-side wagons ... 20 hopper-wagons ... 14 low-side wagons, 4 covered goods wagons, 4 horse-boxes, 4 cattle-trucks, 6 timber-trucks, and 8 brake-vans 11 Jan., 1875 On or before — 18 Oct., 1875 Brown and Francis ... D. and W. Loekhart J. Murray Wenzies and Hughes 21 Aug., 1876 15 Sept., „ 8 Jan., 1877 15 June, „ 2 July, 1877 31 Oct., 1876 31 May, 1877 31 Aug., „ ,, Jampbell Brothers ... Dunedin ... 19 wagons , ... 25 wagons *f. ... 30 low-side wagons... 7 timber-trucks 20 covered-goods wagons, 15 cattle-trucks, 20 sheep-vans, and 6 horse-boxes 1 horse-box 13 timber-trucks 20 low-side wagons ... 1 cattle-truck 4 cattle-wagons, 20 low-side and 34 high-side 11 Dec, 11 May, 1875 26 Oct., 22 Dec, 7 Mar., 1876 31 July, 1879* 30 Sept., 1875 31 Dec, „ 31 Mar., 1876 31 Mar., „ ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 24 Aug., „ 24 Aug., „ 13 Mar., 1877 19 June, „ July. „ Aug., 1877 Dec, „ t May, „ Aug., „ July, „ II. Hislop ?indlay and Co. Campbell Brothers ... rfcNab and Aimers ... Oamaru ... 16 Mar., 1875 21 Aug., 1876 'eter Dey wagons 6 covered-goods, 12 sheep-vans, and 2 horse-boxes 11 Nov., 1875 29 Aug., 1877

E.—B.

Mr. Allison D. Smith to the Hon. the Minister for Public Woeks. Sie, — Locomotive Department, Christchurch, 17th July, 1880. In obedience to the direction contained in a telegram received from the Under-Secretary for Eailways, I have the honor to forward, for your information, a full account of every particular, within my knowledge, in connection with the wagons referred to in my evidence before the Civil Service Commission. On 4th December, 1878,1, instructed Charles Abel, our Car and Wagon Inspector, to proceed to Dunedin to inspect a travelling saw-bench and a circular saw-bench that had been offered to the Government for sale by Messrs. Gibbs aud Clayton; he was also instructed, while in Dunedin, to look through the several factories and shops, in order to note if any suitable machinery could be procured to assist us in building some stock in Christchurch. On the return of our Inspector, he informed me that while in Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach's factory he saw a large quantity of timber being cut for railway-wagon building, which was of the kind known as striiigy-bark or swamp gum, from which, as the saws passed through the timber, water was oozing out. He also informed me that he saw the same class of timber being built into wagons in the Hillside Workshops, and that, from inquiries he had made of the men in Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach's factory, he knew that it w ras the same that they were cutting. Not being satisfied with a merely verbal statement, I got him to put this in writing, and his report was recorded in my office on the 10th December, 1878. This report (record No. 2054) I forwarded to the Commissioner on the 11th December, 1878, asking him to look into the matter, and explaining that the major portion of the cost of repairs to wagons was caused through unseasoned timber being used in their construction. Shortly after this, the Besident and Locomotive Engineer from Dunedin was on a visit to Christchurch, and in going through the yard with him and the Commissioner I referred to this matter, and the Engineer then characterized the Inspector's report as being a falsehood, saying that " he knew what stringy-bark was, and how wagons should be built." The Commissioner at the same time said that this was the best timber that could be obtained. During the month of February several of these new wagons arrived in Christchurch in a miserable condition, which attracted considerable attention from the employes in the shops, and they were rebuilt at this time, or, say, about six weeks from the date of their construction, and I then wrote the following letter to the Acting Commissioner for Eailways, Middle Island : — "Sie,— "27th February, 1879. "In my record No. 2054 of the 11th December, 1878, I had the honor of directing the attention of the Commissioner to the loose manner in which some of the rolling-stock (notably wagons) had been made in Dunedin. " The Commissioner at the time felt somewhat inclined to disbelieve the statements made, and, in justice to the Inspector, I now have the honor of forwarding you a sample of tenoning taken from wagon Nd. 1402, recently built in Dunedin, which will give you a fair idea whether the statements made were not accurate. This wagon was taken off the road unfit for traffic, as it was literally tumbling to pieces, and no alternative was left but to rebuild it. Another wagon, No. 1602, in a similar condition, has just been specially brought under my notice. This is also from Dunedin. "In advising you of above, I may mention that these instances are not exaggerated in any particular, and by no means singular. I would therefore respectfully direct your attention to the advisableness of steps being taken to insure better work being turned out, as it is nothing less than a waste of time and good material in placing wagons on the road in such a slipshod manner. " Allison D. Smith, "Locomotive Engineer." My letter of the 27th February having been sent to the Besident and Locomotive Engineer, he wrote to the Commissioner disclaiming any connection with the stock referred to, and stating that it was built by the Public Works Department, and that he could not be held responsible. He concluded his letter with a very personal attack upon myself. The Besident and Locomotive Engineer's letter was indorsed to me by the Commissioner, and, having noted the remarks, I attached the following letter and returned the correspondence:— " Bad Workmanship in Otago Wagons. "The Commissioner of Eailways, Christchurch. "I have, to thank you for giving me an opportunity of answering the letter of the Besident and Locomotive Engineer of Dunedin, in reply to my report of the 27th February, on the subject mentioned above. "The object of that report was two-fold: firstly, to do an act of justice to our Inspector; and secondly, to take steps that would lead to the proper construction and conservation of valuable Government property. "Of course, I was -not in a position to say exactly by whom the stock was built; but as the Engineer is responsible for the maintenance of the stock, it was clearly his duty, in the interests of the department, to see that the wagons were well constructed before he accepted and passed them into traffic on behalf of working railways, no matter from where or whom they came. "The argument advanced about not being responsible is absurd, for no engineer can be forced without strong protest to accept bad work, and, if this protest was made, then what has become of it? " In any case the fact of the Engineer in Dunedin accepting bad work cannot compel me to receive it second hand from him without reporting the matter. "To speak in stronger terms than the wording of my last report, I now beg to inform you that the majority of Otago wagons that have come north since the opening of the through line have been in a simply disgraceful condition, and the state of things is notorious, and a by-word amongst the employes in the shops. " It was the knowledge of the condition of the Otago stock that caused me to object so strongly at

6

E. —-8.

the time to the proposal of dealing with all stock: as common property, and charging the cost of repairs to a joint account; and, moreover, it was evident from the Engineer's great anxiety to have a joint account, tlurt he was fully aware that it would cost a very large sum to bring his stock up to the standard of efficiency. I hereby challenge the Engineer to a thorough and impartial investigation of the condition of the Otago stock as compared with that in Canterbury, and I earnestly request that you will conduct this investigation personally, calling in, as reliable witnesses, tradesmen and. others connected with the line. " By this means I feel satisfied that you will be convinced that I have in no way exaggerated any of my statements. " I must leave the second paragraph of the Besident Locomotive Engineer's letter unanswered, as it had evidently been hastily written, without regard to official etiquette, and as I desire to deal solely with matters of fact. " Allison D. Smith, " Ist May, 1880. Locomotive Engineer." No reply being received to the above, nor any action taken in the matter as far as I could see, I permitted the matter to drop. Notwithstanding that, these wagons continued to turn up iu Christchurch from time to time, where we rebuilt the worst of them as they came in for repairs. About the 19th February last, when the Hon. the Minister for Public Works was inspecting the workshops at Christchurch, two of these wagons were pointed out to him in a siding, and the Commissioner informed him that the work had been done by contract. In my examination before the Civil Service Commissioners I was asked, " Were these wagons built in the workshops or by contract ?" and I replied, on the combined authorities of the letter of the Eesident and Locomotive Engineer, the indorsement of the Commissioner on that letter, and on the verbal statement made by the Commissioner to the Hon. the Minister, that they were built " By contract." I was then asked, "In all cases ?" and I replied, "To the best of mjr recollection. It may be that some of them came from the workshops." Having now stated all I know in connection with this matter, I beg, in conclusion, to remark that' although I had nothing to do with the construction of these wagons, I knew that as soon as they commenced to run I should be held responsible for their proper working, and for the cost of their repairs. For this reason, the knowledge that they were being badly built was duly represented to my superior officer, and afterwards, on inquiry, was mentioned in evidence to the gentlemen appointed by the Government to conduct an investigation into the working of the department. As the Engineer in Charge has denied any connection with this stock, I have the honor to point out that direct evidence can be taken from the men who actually built the wagons; and I here quote from a letter received by me the other day, which will indicate a direction in which inquiries might be made: — " Patrick Street, Eglinton, Dunedin, sth July, 1880. " Mr. A. D. Smith, Locomotive Engineer, Christchurch. " The other day I noticed in one of our local papers your statement re wagons built here had been impugned. If you require any further evidence to suport your statement, there is a man named Millar, a carpenter, who was at work at Hillside when some of the wagons were being built. He is a comparative stranger to me. . While I had charge of the erecting shop he came to me on several occasions, and complained of the way in which the wagons were being put together, saying the workmanship was very bad, the men not being allowed the time to do the work. Of course I informed him that I had nothing to do with that department. He left the works ; I cannot say for what reason. . . . " J. L. Simpson*." I have, &c, Allison D. Smith, District Locomotive Superintendent.

The Commissioner of Eailways, Middle Island, to the Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Office of the Commissioner of Eailways (Middle Island), Sib,— Dunedin, 24th July, 1880. I have the honor, with reference to, and confirming, my telegram* of the 20th instant, to submit Mr. Armstrong's statement relative to wagons 1515, 1595, and 1670. I can justify and confirm Mr. Armstrong's repudiation in reference to the two wagons first named, by stating a circumstance which he has omitted to refer to, but which is easy of proof. It is, that he built no wagons of a lower number that 1639, which was his commencing number. Injustice to. Mr. Armstrong, it is incumbent upon me to state that his assertion as to the pressure under which he constructed the thirty wagons, of which 1670 was one, is strictly true. The material put into those wagons was avowedly inferior, but I have no reason to suppose that the workmanship was not all that it ought to have been. The matter of workmanship, however, is one that lam bound to leave in the hands of the officers who are placed in charge of the works. In this matter very bold assertions have been made and serious charges brought, and the object of them, it is to be feared, is not far to seek. A thorough investigation, I submit, is indispensable • and I beg leave to suggest that two practical men, thorough experts, be sent down from the JNorth Island to examine and report upon the work, not of Mr. Armstrong only, but of Mr. Smith also. I have, &c, Wm. Conyers, Commissioner of Eailways, Middle Island.

* The substance of this telegram is contained in the memorandum.

7

E.~B.

Memorandum for the Commissioner of Eailways, Middle Island, by Mr. Alex. Armstrong. With reference to wagons 1515, 1595, and 1670, and to the allegations which have been made that they are built of stringy-bark, and that the workmanship of them is bad, I beg to state that of the two wagons first named (1515 and 1595) I have no knowledge. Ido not know where they may have been built, but they were certainly not erected by me, nor am I in the remotest degree responsible for them. The third wagon mentioned, No. 1670, is one of thirty wagons which I built early in 1878, but those wagons were turned out under very peculiar circumstances. It will be in your recollection that, at the period named, the department was in the greatest straits -on this section owing to the insufficiency of wagons, and that the public were making a great outcry because we could not keep pace with the traffic. For this reason, and to turn them out as rapidly as possible, I made use of the only timber which was then available in the market, which happened, unfortunately, to be stringy-bark, and it was not of good quality nor well seasoned. That was the only occasion upon which I have used inferior material in the construction of wagons, but as regards the workmanship in all the wagons I have erected, including those which have been impugned, I am prepared to stand or fall by the judgment of honest and unbiassed experts. Alex. Armstrong, 19th July, 1880. Locomotive Superintendent.

By Authority: Gboege Didsbuby, Government Printer, Wellington.—lBBo. Price, 6d.]

8