187~~-80. ~ -'-- VICTORIA.
I I
\ THIRD Pl10GRESS REPORT I I FROM THE
I ' i SELECT COMMITTEE
ON 'I'D OASE OF
MRS. LEG G.AT;
TOGETHER WITH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF 'fHE COMMITTEE AND MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. I I I I t • Ordered by the Legislativ4 Assembly to be pr:~~ed, 27th January 1880.
,i
--I \l'I.utborit~: lOHN FERRES; GOVERNlIIENT PRINTER, MELBOURNE.
D.-No.1. EXTRACTED FROM THE VOTES AND' PROCEEDINGS.
WEDNESDAY, 10TH DECEMBER 1879.
:MRS. LEGGAT.-Mr. Nimmo moved, pursuant to notice, That a Select Committee be appointed' to enquire into and report upon the allegations contained in the petition of Margaret Leggat, presented to this House on the 12th day of August last; such Committee to consist of Mr. Fincham, Mr. Bell, Mr. A. Ii.. Smith, ~'[r. Dixon, and the Mover, three to form a quorum; with power to call for persons and papers. . Mr. Grant moved, That the debate be now adjourned, Motion, for Ithe iMOlirnnient. oi tlledebate,'byheii"ve wrthdrhw"n:' ";'. 7" ( ( '1 Debate ensued. ' Mr. :Ifrancis moved, by leave of the Assembly, That Mr. Woods and Mr. Fraser be added to the Committee. Question-put and resolved in the affirmative. Question-That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into and report upon the allegations contained in the petition of Margaret Leggat, presented to this House on the 12th day of August last; such Committee to consist of Mr. Fincham, Mr. Bell, Mr. A. K. Smith, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Woods, Mr. Fraser, and the Mover, three to form a quorum; with power to call for persons and papers,:-put.and resolved in the affirmative.
THURSDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 1879. MRs. LEGGAr'S COMM1TTEE;::::l!Ml")Nimmo, 'Ohairman,;havingnl(ived for, an'it'ootiUn~'5Ieav~, Jfr~light\ip a Progress Report from this Committee. ' , . ,; .1' .'{>' , Ordered to lie on the Table, and to be printed. Mus. LEGGAr'S COMM1TrEE.-Mr. Nimmo moved, by leave of the Assembly, That leave be given to Mrs. Leggat to appear before the Committee appointed to enquire into her case by counsel. Question-put and resolved in the affirmative. . ! t' t :,..;
TUESDAY, 20TH JANUARY 1880. MRS. LEGGAT'S COMMlTTEE.-Mr. Nimmo, Chairman, having moved and obtained leave, brought up a Second Progress Report from this Committee. :,J Ordered to lie },n the Table, and:'to be printed. r ) MRS. LEGGA;'S ComllTTE~:""':Mr. N'immb mofed\' by llea-Je of :·th~'. Assembly, Tliat" Jeive be granted'tb the Railway Department to be represented by counsel before the Select Committee appointed to enquire into the case of Mrs. Margaret Leggat. Question-put and resolved in the affirmative.
:1 ;
APPUOXU[ATE COST OF REPOl!T.
Preparation £6 6 0 Shorthand writing THE SELECT COMMITTEE of the Legislative Assembly appointed to inquire into and rt;.port upon the allegations contained in the petition of - Margaret Leggat, have the honor to present to your Honorable House the following additional Progress Report :- 1. That in consequence of representations made to your Committee as to the present state of health of Mr. 'Vatson, the Engineer-in-Chief, who was summoned as a witness on behalf of the Railway Department, and whose evidence is essential to the due prosecution of this inquiry, your Committee have· resolved to adjourn their investigation until the return of Mr. Watson from Tasmania, by which time his health will, in the opinion of his medical adviser, be restored. 2. Your Committee also beg to report the evidence of the witnesses up to the present examined before them. Committee-room, 27th January, 1880. o , . j i· ) PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE. WJ H To the Honorable the Spe'lker and Member .• J.r the Legislative Assembly of Victoria ill Parliament assembled. "The Petition of the undersigned Margaret Leggat, the widow and representative of the late James Leggat. "HU!IBLY SHEWETH "That one Neil MacNeil on the nineteenth day of January in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, entered into it contract with the Board of Land and Works to construct the first section of the Gippsland railway, subject to certain specifications and conditions, for the sum of Ninety-eight thonsand five hundred and twenty pounds thirteen shillings and eightpencc. "That after thc said contract had been commenced in the month of "r~rch, Onc thousaud eight hundred and seventy six, the dceeased James Leg'gat entered into partnership with MacNeil in the contract and, afterwards, on the seventeenth day of l\fn.y One thousand eight hundred and seventy-six such partnership was by mutual consent dissolved, and from that date the contract was carried on aud completed by the said James Leggat alone, with the consent of the Board of Land and Works. . "That during the carrying out of the contract the said James Leggat had,amongstother things, to supply sleepers to construct the line of railway, and in furtherance of the same he did so supply sleepers in every way in accordance with the specifications and which, with a fair and reasonable intcrpretation of the sallie, would have been received and passed by the officer superintending the contract, but such officer unfairly, capriciously, und arbitrarily rejected upwards'of fifteen thousand of such sleepers, and refused to allow the same to be used although sleepers of a precisely similar character and from the same sawmills were being then uniformly and without objection used by the Board of Land and Works and other contractors in the construction of railways, uudcr other contracts containing the sallie conditions. "That, although sorne three thousand of the rejected sleepers were. aftcr remonstrance by the said James Leggat accepted at a reduction in price, the residue have becn rejectcd and refused. by the superintending officer, who stated that a more rigid and strict supervision than usual over this contract had been ordered and this, your petitioner alleges, without any just cause or reason whatsoever. " That in consequence of this unfair and arbitrary rejection of sleepers, mill owners who had been supplying the said James Leggat with sleepcrs wholly refused to supply any further sleepers, although thcy were at the same time supplying similar sleepers to other contractors for other lines of railways then ill proeess of construction, which were passed and accepted without objection, and your petitioner alleges that such wholesale rejection was wholly unwarranted and could only have arisen from an unrcasonable, unfair, and improper reading of the specification, oj' from personal animosity to the said James Leggat on the part of thc superintending officer. " That by such rejection the said James Leggat was put to delay and useless expense in procuring sleepers t,hat would Satisfy the superintending officer. Your petitioner further alleges that during the execution of_the contract large quantities of material for fencing, ill strict accordance with the specifications were obtnined by the said James Leggat, and although such materials were appro\'ed of and passed by the superintending officer, nevertheless, large portions of the fencing, after its erection by the said James Leggat in strict accordance with the specification and plans, were unfairly and improperly rejected and condemned by the snpcrintending officer and ordered by him to be removed and taken down without ~ny reason whatsoever, thereby causing great and serious loss and damage to the said James Leggat. "That the said Neil MacNeil during thc execution of the said contract, in order 10 supply ballast for the railway, sunk certain trial shafts upon certain land and obi ained stone, which was duly inspected and approved by the superintendiog officer and passed by him as suitable for ballast, that after such inspection and approval Neil .MacNeil erected machinery on the land and crushing machines and opened out a quarry and obtained therefrom large quantities of stone, in every way suitable for ballast, and in accordance with a fair and reasonable interpretation of the contract, yet afterwards and after great outlay had been incur'red on the faith of such approval, and although the superintending officer had inspcctcd and approved of the stone and, although he was constantly on the site of the works and daily saw the quarry and stone produced, unreasonably, vexatiously, and of no cause whatBoever, arbitrarily condemned the ballast and stone obtained from such site, and refused to pasR the same, and by unfairly insisting upon arbitrary conditions, which were not warranted by the terms of tbc contract, in respect to the working of the quarry, he obliged the said James Leggat to abandon and give up the quarry and forced him to' obtain ballast elsewhere under great difficulties and severe and unwarrantable restrictions, causing great addition,,1 expense a~d in consequence of such action on the part of the superintending officer, he was obliged to pay compensation to the owner of the land for surface and other damages done thereto, fllld lose the sum so paid and all moneys cxpcnded in erecting machinery, and was delayed in the execution of the contract to bis great injury. "Your petitioner further alleges that the superiotending officer arbitrarily and, unfairly and contrary to the universal and uniform practice of the Hailway Department under similar contrncts for thc construetion of railways, obliged the said James Lpggat to lay thc sleepcrs for the permancnt way, prior to ballasting same, upon other sleepers laid on the formation longitndinally, although no provision for such longitudinal sleepers is mentioned or referred to in the contract or specification, and by reason thereof the said James I..eggat was compelled to supply upwards of one thousdlld three hundred and thirty-three sleepers per mile beyond the amount specifi"d in .the contract, and was compelleil by the .superintendinll' officer, as tbe operation of ballasting the line was proceeded with, to remove all such longitndmal sJeepers, thereby involving great additional eost and labor, and great damage, and injury to the sleepers themselves, without any corresponding advantage to the construction of the line of railway That such a rilOde of proceeding is ill no way eontcmplated by the contract and is quite unusual and is a harsh and unfair exercise of the powcrs conferrcd upon tl,e superintending officer by the contract, and has entailed a serious delay upon the ~a\d James Legll'at in the execution of the contract, and great additional expense and loss to him. Your petitioner further alleges that the said James Legll'at, hadnll' exe('ute,l satisfactorily otht'r railway contracts was entitled to hc dealt with under this in a fair. reasonable, and equitahle manner; but on the contrary, nn concession~ whatever, have hcen allowed to the said James Leg-gat, as is custol1lary 011 Government contracts 01' a like nat nrc, but all the conditions have been h~rshlr lind unf"irly insisted npon-that remonstrances and complaints td the Chief Enginecr of Railways have been totally unheeded by him - thltt an unfair, rigid, and harsh supervision of I he contract has been carried out without any reason whatsoevcr-that all prices fixed fill' rejectei material were arbitrary and unfa.ir; ani that the conduct of the officers of the Hail way Department in connection with the contract is qnite at variance with the usulll and customary 1lI0de of dealing wilh ra.i1way cOlltractors II'hi('.h has bcen heretofore pmcti.oed in this colony-that the said Jamei J_eggat enlered upon this contract with ample means and competcnt skill to satisfactorily carry out the Bame and at & vi price sufficient to leave a fair margin of profit to him on its completion, but in consequence of the unnecessary and vexatious harshness visited upon him in carrying out the works he was reduced to destitution, and, the sense of persecu tion and wrong so preyed upon his mind as to utterly break down his health and cause the illness which resulted in his death. . "That your petitione,r is precluded from maintaining any action or suit in the ordinary legal mauner, in respect of the allegations in this petition, by reason of the stringeney of the eonditions of the contract; and your petiHoner, by reason of the premises in this petition mentioned, has been left eutirely without means of SUbsistence. "Your petitiouer therefore humbly prays that._your. Honorable House may take into consideration the allegations contained in her petition, and that your Honorable House. may be pleased to appoint a seleet committee of members of your Honorable House to inquire into and report upon the allegations contained in your petitioner's said petition. And that your Honorable House may make.such other order, in respeet of the saitl petition, as to your Honorable House may seem just. "And your petitioner will ever pray, &c." The Committee deliberated.. Ordered-That Mr. A. B. Malleson, solicitor, be summoned to attend at ,the next meeting of the Committee with the necessary witnesses and documents in support of the allegations contained in Mrs. Leggat's petition. Also that the proper offieer of the Railway Department be summoned' to attend the Committee with the plans and specifications relating to the late Mr. Lcggat's contract. . Committee adjonrned ~ntil o'clock on Thursday next. THURSDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 1879. Members present: MR. NIMMO, in the Chair; . Mr. A. K., Smitll~ Mr. Fincham.- ,L'd'> ,~9h!I ~,.unt, Dis.tr5ct.Engineer pf.Victorian Railways;,called, and examined by the Committee. , 'I "Mr. Dixon took his seat. • ,ii, I Or,dered--;Tjlat the Railway Department be dirccted: to fnrnish the Committee with copies of all reports of Inspectors on the works constructed under Lcggat's contract. Also with the contracts for the construction of the Geelong and Colac !.ines 9f. rail~vay, and.of ,the sections of the line between Oakleigh and Sale. ' ! Mr. W. ¥,.Ie. ,Vale applied to be allowed to appear as connsel for the petitioner. . The Committee deliberated. , ,.,Mr: Di~on moved-That in the opinion of this .Committee it would be desirable that leave should be given to Mrs. Leggat to appear by counsel before the Committee.' " , , Question-put and resolved in the affirmative.' Ordered-;-;That;the,Chairman do report the foregoing resolution to the House. COl,nmittee adjourned until eleven o'clock on Tuesday, 20th .January 1880 .. TUESDAY, 20TH JANUARY 1880. t. Members present; MR. NIMl\1O, in, the Chair; Mr. Bell, Mr. Fincham. Mr. Billing, Q.C., applied to be allmyed to appear as, counsel for the Railway Depltrtment. Tile Chairman intimated that the leave of the House would have to be obtained before the application could. be- nc'ceded to, • . ' ." I ' The Clerk read the following extract from the Votes and Proeeedings of the 18th December 1879;- c, MRS, LEGGAT'S COMMITTEE.-Mr. Nimmo' moved, by leave of ~he Assembly:"""'That leave be, given to Mrs. '. Leggat.to 'appear before the Committee appointed to inqui!e into her case by coun.sel, : " Question-put and resolved in the affirmative." Mr. Vale appeared as counsel for tbe petitioner. . On the application· of counsel witnesses not under examination were directed to withdraw from the Committee-room •. [: JOhn'Luilt"agairi called,arid 'further examined by the 'Committee.'" . " " " "-' Mr. Fraser took his seat. Mr. Dixon took his seat. Mr. A. K. Smith took his seat. :Examination of witness continue,!. . Mr. Bell moved, That ill ~he opinion of the Committee it would,.be desirable th.. t leave sholjJd be given to the Railway, Department 'to beretm~sented by counsel at'tliis'inqufry: "., ',<;,.," I" , •• .,. '. ., : Question-put and resolved in the affirmative. . . .Ordered-'Fhat.the Chairma~ do, report t1~e. foregoln~ r~~o.lu~io~,to"t~e Ho,nse. ',. Qommi~tee a~joul']l~(Lu~til_e,leven 6'clocl(:,t~mqrrow"" I , . " ~ , WEDNESDAY, 21ST JANUARY 1880.' Membf.Ts present: MR. NIMMO, in the Chair; Mr. Bell" . Mr. Fincham, }Ir. A. K. Smith: The Clerf,read,t4e following eX,tract from the Votes and._Proceedings of'i20th.Januftry, 1880 ;-, ,~' MRS,. ,LI>:GGATT~S CO;M~nT;rEE.-::\h. ;~immp ~lOved" by leave of ,the.. Asscrnbly! That lea.ve be:grante~ to. the Hail way Department to be represented ,by Counsel before the Select· CommIttee. appowted. to enqUIre mto tlieease. of Mrs: Margaret : r "Quest.ion-put and resolved in affirmative." . Mr. Billing, Q.Q., appeared as eounsel for the Railwlj.y, I>epartment. .., " ; .. Committee deliberated. .., Mr. Vale was heard .to address,the Committee on behalf of the petitioner, and, opened her case. ;. ··;\fr.. Fraser took' his seat. ....•. ,.. """. ' John LUllt agl!-in called and further ex,amined by Mr. Vale. ., " Committee adjourned until eleven o'clock tO~lll~~row. , vii THURSDAY, 22nd JANUARY, 1880. Members prlJ8ent: MR. NIMMO, in the Chair; Mr. Bell, I . Mr. Fincham. Ordered-That Robert Watson, Engineer-in-Chief of Victorian Railways, and Thos. Hooke, overseer at 1:'akenham Quarry, be summoned to attend and give evidence at the next meeting of the Committee. John Lunt again called and further examined. WiUiam Walker, sawyer, called and examined by Mr. Vale. Examined by Mr. Billing. J<~xamined by the Committee. James Gibb, farmer and grazier, Berwick, called and examined by Mr. Vale. Mr. Dixon took his seat. Witness examined by Mr. Billing. Examined by the Committee. Further examined by Mr. Vale. Further examined by Mr. Billing. Further eXHmined by the Committee. William \YiI80n, farmer, Berwick, called and examined by Mr. Vale. The witness put in an agreement entered into between him and the late James Leggatt, relative to quarrying ballast ()n witness' land at Berwick. The slime was read by the Clerk.-[ Vide Minutes of Evidence p. 40.] Witness examined by Mr. Billing. Peter ::tliller, railway foreman, called and examined by Mr. Vale. Examined by the Committee. . James Darling, mason, called and examined by Mr. Vaie. Examined by Mr. Billing. Ordered-That that tbe Railway Department do furnish the Committee, at its next meeting, with the Contracts for the following lines of raIlway :- . 1. The Goulburn Valley line. 2. The 2nd and ard Sections of the North-Eastern line. a. The Dunolly and st. Arnaud line. Committee adjourned until eleven o'clock on Tuesday next. TUESDAY, 27m JANUARY 1880. Members pl'esent: Mn. NmlllO, in the Chair j Mr. A. K. Smith, l Mr. Fincham. Mr. Billing addressed the Committee, and pointed out that the present state of health of the Engineer-in-Chief of Railways precluded his appearing as a witness before the Committee. The learned counsel accordingly suggested that the inquiry shouldbe adjourned until Mr. Watson's return from Tasmania whither he was going for the benefit of his health. Mr. Vale addressed the Committee in opposition to this suggestion. Mr. Bell took his seat. - Room cleared. Committee deliberated. Counsel and parties were called in. The Chairman intimated tbat the Committee were not disposed to adopt the course suggested by Mr. Billing; Mr. Watson might have any assistance he required, but his attendance as a witness could not be dispensed with. Mr. Billing again addressed the Committee. Roderick Sutherland, chief clerk in the Crown Solicitor's Office, called and examined relative to Mr. Watson's state of health. Mr. Vale addressed the Committee and examined the witness. Edwin Matthews James, M.R.C.S., Eng., called and examined relative to Mr. Watson's state of health. Committee deliberated. . The following draft Report was read and adopted by the Committee :- DRAFT REPORT. THE SELECT COMMITTEE of the Legislative Assembly, appointed to inquire into and report upon the allegations contained in the petition of Margaret Leggat, have the honor to present to your Honorable House the following additional Progress Report :- 1. That in consequence of representations made to yeur Committee as to the present state of Ifealth of Mr. \Vatsoll, the Engineer-in-Chief, who was summoned as a witness on behalf of the Ruilway department, and whose evidence is essential to the due prosecution of this inquiry, your Committee have resolved to adjourn their investigation until the retnrn of Mr. Watson from Tasmania, by which time his health will, in the opinion of his medical adviser, be restored. 2.• Your Committee also beg to report the evidence of the witnesses up to the present examined before them. Committee-room, 27th Jannary 1880. Committee -adjourned. LIST OF WITNESSES. John Lunt i .... ~ ••.• I, 29 ~ W. WalJrc.r ~ -'I'.,' \...... : r···. 35 J. Gibb ... 40 W. Wilson 43 P. Miller 48 J. Darling .;r _. R. A. Sutherland 52 E. M. James, )I.R.C.s., Eng. MINUTES OF EVIDENOE. THURSDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 1879. Members present: MR. NnIMO, in the Chair; Mr. A. K. Smith, Mr. Dixon. Mr. Fincham, John Lunt, examined. 1. By the Chairman.-In what capacity had you charge of the works ?-As district engineer. 2. In charge of those works that were constructed by the late Mr. Leggat ?-Yes. 3. Have you the specifications for the work here ?-Yes.-[ The same were produced.] 4. Will yOIl turn up the clause in the specification referring to the sleepers, the dimensions of the sleepers, and the q Ilality of the sleepers?- Yes, I have it. 5. Will you read it ?-" The sleepers are to be provided aDd delivered on the works where required for use by the contractor, and are 10 be of redgum, il'onbark, messmate, peppermint, box, or other approved hardwood, at the discretion of the Engineer-in-Chief, sound cut ii'om trees of large growth, fl'ee from heart, sap, and from large knots and shakes of every description, and'must be straight on each face and out of winding. They are to be rectangular 9 (nine) inches by 4~ (four and a half) inches in'section, and 8 ft. 6 in. (eight feet and six inches) in length; allowance mIlst be made in cutting for shrinkage, and at any time before the completion of the contract any sleepers which are found to vary more than a quarter of an inch from the stipulated sectional dimensions in consequence of shrinkage will be rejected. No whitegum sleepers will be received." 6. Which of those kinds of timber did the Engineer select ?-Rcdgum, messmate, and stringybark sleepers. i 7. There was no peppermint ?-I am not aware that there was. 8. Are you aware that 15,000 of the sleepers provided were rejected ?-1 know a large amount was ~~~ . 9. Do you know on what ground they were rejected ?-Because of bad quality, and too small. 10. What was the quality ?-Full of heart and sap, and not the size. 11. Do YOll know from which sawmills those sleepers came ?-I could not say. They came from a. number of places. 12. Had you charge of any other works in addition to Mr. Leggat's contraet at the time?-Yes; I had a portion of the middle section of the Gippsland Railway. 13. That is between Oakleigh and Sale ?-Yes. 14. What kiud of sleepers were furnished for that work ?-Principally stringybark sleepers. There was a large number of whitegum sleepers cut, but thcy were rejected. 15. In rejecting those sleepers did you follow the usual course and give due notice in writing setting forth the grounds of their being rejected ?-We told them at the time. I told them repeatedly that the sleepers would not do. 16. Do not the conditions of the specifications provide that you must give notice in writing ?- I~~koo~ . 17. Show me the conditions.-[ The same were handed to the Chairman J.-There were a number of those sleepers lifteu after they were laid down ?-Yes. 18. I find here in clause 49 of the specification that those sleepers should be examined by the super intend~g officer before they are fixed; were they so 'examined ?-A very large number of sleepers were put in to allow them to get on with the roads. 19. I find that H Previous to laying the rails each sleeper must be properly adzed true and out of winding to a proper template so as to ensure a perfect seat for the chairs (if any), or if flange rails be nsed to secure a perfect seat, and the proper cant of 1 in 20 for the rail; care must be taken that the adzing of the sleeper is examined and found true immediately before the chair or rail is fixed, and the holes for fang bolts and dogs to be bored to the size directed by the superintending officer"-were any of those sleepers lifted that were directed to be laid by the superintending officer ?.,-I could not say. 20. Do you know where the clauses are relating to the giving dlle notice ?-I do not. 21. By 111r. A. K. Smith.-The minimum size of the sleeper would be 8f inches by 4;} inches ?-Yes. 22. Are you aware or the shrinkage on a 9-inch sleeper, how much it would shrink ?-Half an inch on the 9 inches. 23. Is there no.thing in the specifications saying they were to cut them as much above the size as would allow for that shrinkage?-What the specificlltion states is that they are to allow for shrinknge, and nothing more than a quarter of an inch would be taken at the close of the contract. 24. By the Chairman.-Did you give any notice in writing setting forth the size and quality or those sleepers that were objected to. I find in clause 79 that "if the contractor shall in the opinion of .Mns. LEaaAT ------... ----.~. 2 John Lunt. continued. the Engineer-in-Chief fail to make such progress with the works as the Engineer-in-Chief shall deem suffi 18thlDec. 187g· cient to ensure their completion within the speeified time, or ;;hall after the specified time has lapsed have not made proper progl'Gss with such works, or if the cOlltractor shall use or employ bad or insufficient mat.erials or execute auy work in an imperfect manner, and shall fail. or neglect to rectify ahy such cause of complaint for seven days after being thel'eunto required in writing by the Engineer-in-Chief, or if the contractor shall in the judgment of the Ellgineer-in-ChiH commit. a wilful breach of his contract, or if any of the works in the specification or in any of the drawillgs, or any extras, additions, enlargements, devia tions, or alterations there~o or, 'tppieill, sna1V be carried on O1:.,doneoll anj'IS,umlay." TIds proves he should have had a notice in writing i have' you'a copy of tliat notice that was served upon Mr, Leggat as to those slcepers ?-I do not know that we have. Clause 79 refers to cancelling the contract. 25. By j1fr. A, K Smith.-Have you an index of' the letters so that you can tnrn it up ?-I believe it was all verbal. 26. By the Clwil'man.-Bnt by the conditions of the contract it should have been in writing. You do not know of your own knowledge that copies or notices are in existence that were served upon Mr. Leggat objecting to those materials ?-I believe they were verbal in the first place. . 27, Then if they werevei'l)al'aiid~ uot !{i:i\"riting, tIie);' wi-re "C'drif,rary to the conditions of' the speci fication and the conditions of the contract [-Hip no~\\snl).~.to give notice in writing. 28. That is not an answer to my questiCHl at an ;' this is not a verbal affair; if the man was pro ducing bad or insufficient materials you lought .to. have·given him notice in writing, .and we want to know if he did get notice or not; and· if n9t, why not ?-T gave notice ver~!1ny, Rlfd 1 all!' not aware if there was any writing or not. ' : ;'... '. 29. Did yon suspend any portion of the work during its execution in consequence of those defects? ".,: ,II; " -I think not. 1ft'. Leggat asked me v~rQally. to.all~nv .him to put in a number of' those sleepers to get on ,\; ,:iL'. __ ,,:-5 with the works. He wanted to get the connectiori made with Berwick so as to get the ballasting back, and· they>d-id ,not cure .what ,tl1e}materiai;was"sol that they eOl1'ld'.'get' the connectlioI1l't0\\Wol'k~ back again. 30, I fitldJ(tnothC1,~cta:use'l hel:e~!la .overy,1inlportahtuone,~''ffN orie "O'ft,;thClCciauses '.or,!prov,i'sions of the specificat.io:D;~o!l,of,"th!,se'condj.tions'l Ol~ of' any other1.parf'ofHhil'Vcoritract, shalLbe,tval'ied~li~yai·veU; discharged . .:i or'releasod/lei!licr,!ill Jaw.lOrJi.n' eqnity,\\unless I by,ltlre je~pl:.ess,'consentlof;:,the~ ~oard:mllder jtfHseM." You had really no power to depart from tile modus. operailili ,o.£:igiving:"writtem noticy,dfr:y;ou!ooject.cd"d;.oainy .. 'portion' of' i thc :'~n'aterid,ls; and rivlioe'ver was'iiil':chal'gc"COlllu!'satisfy .you~ 'and; Jiimself.,too;la·sl to', the true - chara.cter of, the materials,; ~uhlif .this,system-: has',LecIHobser.ved 0.£ 'colldemning')inaterials'"vithout,proper Iiotiee,:.in conformity wit,h the 'conditions,' there' is a,most import.anti omission.p·'In' fact yon ha Engineer-in"Chief condemned the first·lotdf,sleepers,:and;I'wa;s'present, '\ "; i\ .11' I d."! " 37. Bll llfr. Fincham.-Then the '<;ibligatioll of complying with' the conditions of, the lcontl'a'ctorlly rests on one side. Is that so. That is to say, that the ,contractor ·is .bound. byithe conditions; and the Government is not.: ,~,Is it t(Fh.e'understood the GoV'ernmentiwollld.,be:equally bonnddo comply, with the conditions of the cOlltract as the contl'actor ?~ Yes;; , .. j, .. r J3~; Then' if· 'one· of.· the : conditions :isJ'that·· the Government should :serve'lwritten !liotice of nOll compliance with· any':of"the conditions,) an'd,lthe G'overnment"faiJito do·.tha.t; 'are,not.lthe Government distinctly guilty. of a breach of the conditions ?-I suppose they are, so far as that.is conceined. ' I'ldo hot kuow·wllCthertheygi'·eawritt.en.notice." "I .,·i·.. ··i··" , .. '",.' ;... :'.','" 39. You have stated to the best of your recollection no other notice was given, further th:m a 'verbal 'sta.temeht ?"':'::'We"ni'ight',findit"'by:ref~rrirlg'to'tbe letters., ,. '" I., 'WI" '.' ," '.J '.1,', " I 39*, As inspecting engineer of the works, having discovered that any breach of·1the:,eontractliWas ahout .to be made,,'would yOl~ .. not- iU!luediately l:epOl't .in-writing, ,if not to the. contractor at!any rate to your supcI'ior 'officer ?-,-Yes. .' , .. .' '" ,~" ' .', . " " .. ",; 40. Did you do that?-Yes. . '. ' ,41. Is that report in;,exis!\lDce?-Yes, it would beinexistence. '" I ; I: -' ,; .. , ,42. By. the Chairman.-Can·,you produce;it now i':--Itwilhake some' time to ii'up. it.;, ,,;! .. i 'J 4? But yon .will ,un~e~take to have :,that ~epOl:t by: the next mt:;etiug ?--,-Yes ; ,we 'will'get the,.jetters all together:' . " I .,. : ~ .. , .. ;., 44,: By Mr. Filiclta1/i:-'-Yon are· prepared- to pi'ove that repOl:i was' received: by: YOllr,stiperiol' officet'o Can YOIl inform the COrri~ittee' 'what ,a'etion 'wa~ ta~Cl~: subsequently 'in·;cOllse·qnerrce"of-;I;hat!:..r~port!Ui-I could not, justin6;\r.·--·, ,. ii.·,' "',' .• ,'.~ . ". 'J' ,,, '.'" ". ;"'" ,I "'. " /1''- .' •• \' .'45.:,,\V,pat. would' 'bQ>tlle ordinary;cour:se ?:-In';all prohabiHty the-letter. 'was s·ent.HOll}:'lthe "Enginee~- in.Chief's offic~ to'the.contractor.. . t· ;1 '; , " n," :) "I\"'f .i<" ;;'''"' !K 46. Would it necessarily follow that your report would be the cause of a written ,riotice ibeillgJsent to the contractor ?-Yes. .',. ,. '47. That must necessarily follow·?-Yes.. " '1"": 'ii ,;,. " ..•', ,;,)1:, •.. !HI:i 48. Then ·what, hecomes of your, evidence ,that has. been'given ?"-'-11hat ,is, about the! sleeper-s,i !U,,' 49. About any breach 'of contract ?-There fIre .letters inexistence 'about,:putfing\in.,liad niateriaL "50. Is ityoilr''wish,to contradict what you havesaidl ?'''':''Wewere'tnli,ing'ahoutithe sleEWers.> ,,,,j 'I~ + >", '1 .,' "11' 3 John Lun, 5). We are talking abOl{t;.th:e:.s]ecp·efs'; Ithe' gelleral.:mle is .. whatuwe,,:want to get at ?-There are continued, l~b Doo, 1879. l~~.t~,rsjn existel)pe., "'-<", C' ' .• , • ,"T (' 'f,'.·', ".,~'" ,.'-, '.J • 'r .• ' ,. ":. '. \ ,':' • • ~I i 1.... '; • • v, :to .f%,.T¥e~}he\p.ahtr,~ ;?f, th~.,t!'lSPlllOllY tl;1at yo~ n~~\ giye.,is ,t~at, writte71 Ifoti?e was, sery.cd o~ th~., ott i .pi" ~'~' c?~tract9r ?-,:,FQr s~m.e .ot:he parts'??ndem~ed. .'. '. ,; '.;" .. " .', . " .,','1' ~i '- iJ~! ~ hatpar~I~ul~~ ,parts:: .':~%ap[llte~ .to everJ,'tJ:\l~gt W;o?ld.It n~pessarIly follow that yOll, haYI?~ . d1scovered a breaeh In' .the condItions ,by the epntFaptQr'm the lhseharge;ofyour·duty must neeessanlyJ' repor,t"to 'your sUp'erio\'offi'c~r in 'vriting ?-yes.· , . .'. '.. ... ". ," . " (;1\ .'. ~4'.; Ana 'tllen::you;saj!tlieri:i woilld 'ne a written doeument sehf to the contr-acto1'S intimating this ?-+- " Yes. • " . . . , , 5~. ,Is not that .0. eontradiction to the statementL,you·liave .'.alreadY made .?-'-'-We w.ere! talking "lIoout . tlie sleepers,., . ,"".:. " ,' ..... ," " '." \ ,. ". . .. ,',i. ,,'.' •• :'.' . J ' .. 56. The question is, what is the order and maIljl~I1.})f :yOljJi :j.lischarging ;ypu~' quty"" As an ofl\ccr of; tlJ!'1 QQjV;!lliy.wen~,y,p,t;t)}!-r9l,p'lac~~ iIf~c.4ang\l .Qf.:tl).~~e, ~v~r.J.>:!l ~;(~(1l:,J.,d\BP9v.er an,~l'r~)l; i]H9 fll-\, a~ ;thc cpn,tractor ifiJ9o~~.c;.~rnq~';;i~q~~·i!ll}Yvpisti,~ctJy tl~e ft-l'?~ d~.\,y)~ ~5:9;epor,~ ,tp .yQU~. 8~1p'~rior l.offl:9~r, .aJtli as aneC,eSflal'Y: CR!\~,t ~~~J~~Ilced.,\he.coIttra?d}?,r)is~1ffot;.m~d.fr.?m t~e, dfPwt\Jt~J?t 9f,tLlc:.compl,ai1+t.Ye::iI).' el:istence, and;.b(M~a.p3lble 'p.fi b~ing~pr9dt;lc~d;?,;i-J:~s,,,,~T.~((,fql?o'!Ving It;(tel' was handed in]:- ' ~'Il-"-, ~ I,"J'1'" ;". r'" ',.' ;." '" .. , "', ". Mi. NE~L M1(JN~11.; t " ,. : ;1;:. ' i!:.'\ ,_t . i '.- ; L "I'.'ii'R~il\v'~;.'-6epa~f!:~~r~~i~t~~~!,:~:~;S.ePt~mber 18;9. ' f""; '. 'f ~ (~.- I '. ~ ~ ,~., ~. , '-', ~h'-' ·.l:(\{t·J·t~~Pt~f?::w~ me ..~hat .YQ,u ~,!,,,e p.0H~~9y~d ~.~e f91P!Op, er,~a\~e~ia~s w~ich .ton w~re dire,cte~ to ~emo,ve on the' 6t IllS an. ~ . J. . . '.' "'. . ,I,.;; -. • '~. J " • \ I now send you \n~tructions'. duly. confirme e::;,. 66. W,~re .those 3,099 stillbelleath the. size, and of bll,d, q\lo,lity? ...... They .were be~e!tth the size. II 67. Yet you accepted them ?-Yes, at a reduced. price. . ).~h?!;':f' . ~~. ,,~~9' t.~e ~o~~d~~n?!y yO\! to;devj~te. f,rQm. ,~he 8pe9ifi?~tiR~ P-;;-~f }';~'! t br the laf~ Engipeer-iu- lJ 1e· III wrIting.· .'. . . .- ." .• 69•. He had nl(. p,(rive-l'! to}~~~P~I;t (ro1n t~El.sp.~cWpa,~i~n·.d~l:i: sigQed.,.hy .l!:lf-~·P9ne ?f.tll~· c.lau¥~s ,9Y IW?r.j~ions of. the ~peciffcation, or of· t,h~se cop4itiop.~,. .or 9f a~y pt~E,lr part of this cohtract; shall be varied;' waived, discharged, or released t:;ither in la\v or in equity, unless by (he expr.ess consent of the Board under its\'~ear:" Can' youproduce the 'record of the Board meetiI;g, at 'which'. the Engineer-iIi-Chief hli'd power to' deviate ft:om the condItions of the specificlltion, and accept thc 3;OQO out. of the 15,000 ?-I cannot. It was a mafterthat took place it long 'time ago.: ". . .". . , .' .. " . -,." ~' "70."; Will ·you come at the next meeting' bf the .Committee ;preparcd' to·.. produce all the documents in the Ishape'of,c6rrespobdence, plans;,and·-otherwis.e in. relittion to the. matters speciiied in. the short statf!ment. of Mrs. Leggat's casc now handed to you ?-I will. '. '. W) ;;",,7.l;J;You can .givcthe .Committee .the like information with>r!lga:r.d to.ot:\l~r ..! ~l!. , e~ :. JI ,'lu TUESDAY, 20TH JANUARY ·1880. Members .present : ~fR. NIMMO i~ the Chair; Mr. Fincham,' Mr. Dixon, Mr. Fraser, Mr. A. K. Smith. Mr. Bell, J.' ~ ,JI, '.; '. ' "...., . '> ' ,,,M,r:.. ,,w.. M:; J{. Vg.l~, ,Earrister-l:!>t::l.a.w, l:!>ppea:r;ed, by- permission ·of the ,House 'as counsel for ¥rs.L.eggat. : , '. ::.. . '. . Mr. Billing, Q.C., asked for permission to appear on behalf of the Crown. I,ll "_ '/.'he Ch.~ir~ani.Ilt.iJnated tp,at until t1,le consent of the House had been obtained th~,leal'l1eu gentleman could not appea,r before the Committee. . .bi! (, After.. d~Uqeration, .t4e COI~ll]littee: ~ecided ,that lYlr .. 13illing, although he could not n.p'1e~H· III the present stage of the proceedings, could remain to watch the case on behalf of the Crow;J. 4 John Lunt, recalled and further examined. .Jobn Lunt. 72. By the Committee.-The last question that was put to you was when you came at the 2Qth J lID. 1880 next meetmg of the Oommittee _" Will you come at the next meeting of the Oommittee, prepared to produce all the documents in the shape of correspondence, plans, and otherwise, in relation to the matters specified in the short statement of Mrs. Leggat's case, now handed to you ?-1 will" The reason of that was that 15,000 sleepers had been condemned, and of those sleepers 3,000 had been re-selected; we want to know the reasons for condemning them, the whole of them, and selecting part of them, after they had been condemned. You said you would have the letters and orders, have you them now ?-1 have. 73. First the order condemning the 15,000, and then the order to select the 3,000 out of the 15,000 ?-First of all I w1:ote to Mr. MacNeil. 74. It is provided in your specifications that you shall set forth in your notice the nature of your objections to the matcrials, have you that notice here; you are bound by your conditions to set forth the nature of the objections, whatever they may be. We want to get the very inception of this case before us if possible?-Verbal notice was given before that. 75. You said when yon were here before, if you found anything not in accordance with the specifications you reported it to your superior officers ?-In s01pe cases, not always; there are some letters there from Mr. Watson, the Resident Engineer of the time, about condemned materials. 76. The Oommittee would like to get the first move in connection with those sleepers. We want the notice to show why those 15,000 sleepers should not be accepted. Were those sleepers complained of after they were bruught in ?-They ,vere verbally complained of repeatedly as they . were brought in. 77. Who made the complaint ?-The inspector. 78. The inspector would take a note of it stated at the last meeting that it was in consequence the sleepers being cut out of small timber. 79. But the inspector would have to forward a report to you; did he send his fortnightly reports to you ?-No, it is not usual. 80. Do you mean to say you rejected sleepers simply upon the word of an inspector. Where are the conditions of thc contract ?-They are here.-[ The same mere produeed.l . 81. There is this condition :_u It shall be lawful for thc Engineer-in-OIlief or superintend- ing officer to order the removal from the works of any materials, whether fixed or not, which may appear to to be of an inferior or improper description, and the contractor shall remove the same within twenty-four hours after a written notice that behalf given to him by the Engineer in-Ohief or the superintending officer; and in case of neglect or refusal to remove the same according to such notice, the Board shall have power, till such materials are removed, to withhold payment of all sums' of money that may be due or that may thereafter become due to the con tractor." There is no evidence as to written notice ?-There are a lot of' railway contracts throughout the colony that written notice is never given at all. 82. But the specification requires that notice sll-ould be given in writing. Now as to those 15,000 sleepers that you r~jected, did you give notice in writing of the grounds of your rejection, and if so, where is that notice ?~Here is a memo. of the 26th of October 1875. . 83. That is right enougl1-we want to know what preceded that. There can be no doubt the sleepers were condemned, but before they were condemned there must have been the con demnation of the sleepers appearing on a notice served on the contractor, yet you gave no written notice, but the contractor was merely spoken to verbally?-In t.he first place it was verbally. . 84. Then this portion of the clause in the condition was never carried out by the Govern- ment, are we to understand that ?-So far as the sleepers were concerned we could not order the condemned sleepers off the line. . 85. It is the condemnation we are referring to, and you did not give notice stating the grounds of objection to these sleepers in writing; if you did, where is it ; we want it-[ The following letter, dated 26th October 1875, was rea.d] :- Contract 635. MEMO. for Mr. McNeil. Berwick, 26th October 1875. I have to request that you will at once remove from the works all timber, post and rails, &c., and all other material which is condemned. . (Signed) JOHN LUNT, District Engineer. 86. Oannot you produce that notice cannot. 87. Is it not the practice of the engineer in charge of any Government works to notify in his field-book any notice that has been given officially to the contractor over whose work he is exercising supervision and control ; I make a note in my diary in the evening. 88. Then, as your field-book or diary is always under your own control, you can refer to it and prove the date on which you gave notice to the contractor ?-Yes. ' 89. Have you got it ?-1 have not got it here. 90. It can be produced ?-Yes. 91. It is of the utmost importance that we should have the evidence of the first notice given to the contractor, and no doubt your book will contain that evidence doubt it will. 92. Would it take long to procure that book? -Yes, it would; because I shall have to go through it myself. . . 93 . .Are we to understand that that notice can or cannot he produced ?-It was a verbal notice. 94. In giving that notice, were you guided by the conditions of this contract ?-It was the Resident Engineer. 5 John Lunt, 95. Who was the Resident Engineer ?-It was Mr. Watson. oontinued. 96. What did Mr. Watson do ?-He rE\jected the sleepers. 2OthJIIll.18lll'. 97. Upon whose report?-Uponhis own. He was on the ground, and saw them, and rejected them. 98. Is Mr. Watson here to-day ?-He is. 99. Who first condemned the sleepers ?-Mr. Watson. 100. Then you say the Resident Engineer first condemned the sleepers ?-Yes. 101. 'l'heu what action did the inspector take ?-They were looked at as they were put on the road, and the bad ones were rejected and the good ones selected. 102~ Were they not dealt with as they were put on the line ?-No. 103. ,Ve understand the Resident Engineer condemned those sleepers ?-He condemned the first sleepers that were condemned on the line. 104. On his own. motion 1-He came to Berwick and examined them, and condemned a great number of them. 105. W m;e they then stacked ?-They were stacked on the line. 106. Were those sleepers complained of as they were delivered, or were they complained of in the whole. You were understood to say they were complained of as they were delivered-this statement is different ?-They were not complained of as they were delivered; there was no man there to receive them. 107. You say that the sleepers were stacked?-Yes. 108. Are to we understand that every sleep~r the stack was condemned by the Mr. Watson? -Certainly not. 109. Were those that were condemned by him marked by the inspector on the ground 1- No. 110. Then how was Mr. Leggat to know which sleeper was condemned and which was not out of the stack ?-At this time it was Mr. MacNeil's contract. Ill. How was Mr. MacNeil to know ?-By turning them over. 112. What was the use of turning them over ?-To pick olit the bad ones. 113. It appears that Mr. Watson picked out the bad ones without turning them over. Were not those marked that he said were bad ; it is unusual to mark the sleepers at all. They were supposed to be condemned at the time they were put on the ground, or even taken out afterwards, according to the specifications. 114. When Mr. Watson went to the stack of sleepers, and condemned them on this indefinite action, which nobody knows, or had an opportunity of knowing, except Mr. Watson, wJ:tat action was taken by Mr. Watson after that ?-Here is a letter bearing date 3rd November 1875, which is as follows :- Engineer-in-Chief's Office, Railway Department, Memo. for JI'!r. Neil MeNeil. ~lelbourne, 3rd November 1875. I have recommended that the Board of Land and Works withhold payment of any further sums of money to you until you have removed the improper materials which you have been ordered to remove from the works, in accordance with clause No. 68 of general conditions. It is my intention to be at Berwick on Friday, 5th inst. I hope I may not find it necessary to recommend such steps as might bring loss or inconvenience to you, hut I am bound to look after the interests of the department. (Sd.) ROBT. WATSON, R.est. Engr. 115. ,'\I ere there any progress payments made against those sleepers before Mr . Watson saw them ?-I could not say. 116. Will you search the records of the department, in order to answer the last question? -I will. 117. What date was Mr. Watson at Berwick when he rejected those sleepers ?-He writes that letter on the 3rd November 1875, and he said he would be there the Friday following. 118. Had any payments been made to the contractor prior to that?-We will see presently. 119. When Mr. Watson went on that day was it his first visit to Berwick ?-I do not think that was the date. This was another time he was down. That was not the time he condemned the sleepers. 120. When did he condemn the sleepers ?-I could not say. If I had my diary here I could tell. ' 121. The last day we parted here' you recollect there was a clear understanding-" will you come at the next meeting of the Committee prepared to produce all the documents in the shape of correspondence, plans, and otherwise in relation to the matters specified in the short statement of Mrs. Leggat's case now handed to you?-I will " ?-The diary is a private record of my own. 122. We do not want private records, we want the public records ?-- Mr. Vale submitted that the diary was not a private but a public record; and that the Committee were entitled to have Mr. Lunt's (the witness's) records from the first time he super- vised·,the works. . [The witness stated that he 1vould produce his diary.] 123. There was no official notice given to the contractor that this large number of sleepers would be 'i:ejected until the official visit of the engineer; what is the ordinary practice-is the contracJor expected to deliver the whole quantity required to fulfil his contract before they are supervised by any officer of the Government ?-Certainly not. 124. In this case was the large quantity of sleepers referred to by you supervised by any inspector prior to Mr. Watson condemning them daresay they were seen by myself and the inspector" ~J14" ~lr. Mac~e.g was told a large number of them would be rejected. 6 it in r fl ..fJ'" f::t.~~ftDt . 125. Is.it the ordinary practt~~,:~W:. an pf£iqer.in charge to notify. to. the contractor the first 2O>h JI!o1l. 1880. 0Fc,a~I~H,on ~~~c~;h~.. seei;lapy maiAir~al to 'b~ ,reJected ?'-,-Verbally. " , . 126. You admItted you were III charge 'of those works from the commeucement ?-Yes. 127. As a matter'of fact, did you notifY to the contractor that the sleepers he was supply~" ing were uot in accordance with the sp~,ci~~:,ttio,n~?~I ~td--v'~rbally.· l' .' ',' . . 128. W;h~n ?~I.. could p,qt tell you:' ,I j... ., .' ,I " . '. • " .129. Dld'yml'dO"it"Iuore thai!" once ?~Yes' many: Hmes .. , . . i' 1LO ,1'H:ilg6;{(Dittjoti"'tepo¥F'firat' fact ,;(? y'~ur "inipe'ri6i- 6ffice'ri'?~Yes: . ""', " 131. Was it.in con~~.\lu~n~,,(;(:t8at.r~p,ort 'l~hat. ¥,'!:. ,',\V atson,J}len 'acttng as chfef engineer;" V;l!~,\W.~,.~j,;;9,~rlf)H~,~~-m'f'~qrnQ~;.. :" ·"'"I'-i·': I, ...• ,:,J.: " ...•.',.1; ..... , .. , '.t' f'l .; 137. Yet dUrIng those twenty-;four mOI,lths he contmuea to delIver those goods, well. known by him to be not in accordanc~ with the speQAttca.tio'ns.?-Yes, 1\1r: lYIa:cNeil ahd Mr. Leggat also~" 13ft :From month to,nibntl,l yougave'them 'notice many times?~I~did; many,·tini~s: '~rc ' ~3~. v'Tere'the sleeper-s s~wh'or iluihi; )4~:;l -W;~at,,:w~s}~~1~ch,eq1l:~~,prige ?-:-:;fO';1l' ~:t,d,sif.p~~ce:_, ,; n, "._ .. ;, . 149. THose sleepers 'ivere bemg' collected dUrIng a' perIOd' of1two, years·?'-Yes. .' 1 ., ili,m;j,?"l9pOh,,R0t;WY ':'1:4,~~~tt~~4.f,~rt 4dur,~nbg ~t,~},l;~}dqna&,,~it~e t~P,p~tohgr~b~:sdP~y,rn~~ts wer~j Ihll:~f:against t em. -' rogress paymen s were rna e, u we 1 no re urn e a ones. . , '~, . ! .;r,' . 151. Hav:e y;ou got ~opies o~ tqe progl'e,ss payment~, ?-Y;es ; they afe all tqere. ","1 1._, 1,qg! '~~n~ere, a,r~t;~h!'lY:' ?-;;;:-t..'il)~, l?-rQg.l19C,}h~W~, '.' :" .,. :. >J '" .-" ., ,.- ~ " .' ',I .-,~ •. f.' ','" d-. \~ L).?:: ,1.1:',,; ):.,:"i: tThel.1oilo.m,inrFislan, eft,itofn~.'ij the 'Returns.] ,'j , :Extract ,narked 1, 'from Progress Return No, 8, page 42, Dated 8th January 1876, :j::S. ' .. ,. No'of'sieeperSadva·ncedon,S627,.' .~ .: '~"-,, ','. ';" Extract marked 2, from Progress Return No, 4; 28th June 1875, page No, 23. No of sleepers advanced 'on,,] 003., " ',; I., llOY ;:., J53.. J:I;pW.9-4.e I~y the, d~p,ar~m~nJJ(;-:; (~~.~:;:W!}Jl~ . ."", ..., , 1 t [ Letter '24t~ J an¥liry' 18 77 read,. ] , ' ·Mr. Lunt' Melbourne, 24th January 1877: , , •• I' f SIR,-As a large number of the sleepers w~ich I have provided do not come np to demands of the specific'aiion, the defects in manY of which have resulted from exposure to the weatheriI beg respectfully to' ask if you ,will allow me to use ;t.Ji·osg:which are partially, ~plitby, bolting them.as·shown in specificatiop., C Jl " .. i :" .. ) '.';, "'. : •. -; '.L .' ~ (, itt F(Reglln1jpg"~J;IO~e,.w,11~P,~ ,are· Of t.herfilVise f~!llty" l.:wi}} 9.e, ,!,I~_ :if YOll <;wohld, 'be:willing, if'it meets your approval, to give:you one extra',in each length of raiL ' "'" . ~ ." , ,. " " , , Yf:~l ;,:HoPmIH " . , .' i.' , " I I am., Sir, " . I I 1 " ,.I l' ,,' '. " .!'J""C',., .l (! :r.'.j ,;',"1 ..', ", :" , Your most obedient Servant" ' , '(Sd.) JAMES'· LEGGAT: 7 _ Lett~'t;, ~9t~ January 1877, mas read as follO?V~ : Contract No. 635. " .Sm, . i. I Railway Department, Berwick, 29th January 1877. ;In answer to yours.of. 24th inst" re,condemneil sleepers, I h,ave the ~onor to inform you tpe sl~epersJ~at ?,av~ \~e7n rejected will not be taken at a reduced price for the purpose of bemg used m the perm~nent way. . ' . '.' Most of the sleepers that you say ~re partially split have both heart and sap ··Ill them, havlllg. been cut. of ,young timber., whichi~ not in accordance with the specification .. '," .. ,'" '."" .. ,.,,,.~ f-... ,.: : •• I !. I . If you think proper to collect and stack the best of the redgum sleepers that are now left I wlil have th~I'r\,ex1L!'Pln,e,d, and decide as to your offer of giving one extra sleeper to each" length ,of,.rails.. ., I ,. I , I have the honor to be, Sir, .your most obedient servant, (Sd.) .JOHN LUNT, District Engineer. . ' :. .155. Was that letter ,b\lfore or after you took ,the 3,OQO,sl~epers ?-c"Before.· . ". , ,156. :Was tha;t:,,:v;haMe.a,~.w to it; when you ,examined ,them. ~ic:l you accept the"term~;9f r,l\ir .. Leggat 7-:-No, W.e.,d;iq,,:p;Qt!!).CC19pt the extr,a flleeper, ·but· th~ reduction of .Is. 6d., per. .sleeper. r··'·,' 157~ ~Do you\'~n0~~}YV:hat,.bec.a,me;of .those remai!;ling 12,.000.sleepers.?,.,..,.,..They were sold to different parties, I believe, by the contractor. , I 158. Do you l~nC\'\V for. what ·pm;pose 7-1 coulc:l1 not s.ay" ." '. . ... ' . ., f '.",' ' ,159.:Was any p.(mtj.9n:J9f t,hem. t)ver llsed, oB\,thip YictoJ;ian,Jines ,of raQ'1'ay toy:our .;t~npw ledge ?-1 do not think it. 160. What did you do with the 3,000 ?-They are in the road . .' 161. Did :M:r,L~ggat 91' Mr; l\facNeil ever show that probably any defect might have been " ~n consequence ofth,e very long tim,e t4ey,w~re s,tandiIig;'I,V~~~h might n'otperhaps'injuretheir life .1fl.l1,the·,1!Oad .?,-;-;He dld~not"~l"I!I,,:,q \' ""," ,"""i' , ,,,Ii.,,: '" • h'" .... " ..... , ..,_" .• ""-. ,..: ,., ' . ,.". ::".~~", . .' 162: ,Do -yollattri'Quteran-y, or:·some:;of, -their' d~fectsifto"the,'long,:.'time ,they. were: 'standing exposed ?-No doubt, -but th!=l,'greater portion w6uid Iiot .have 'split iCthey" had I not ,been young .~iIDber·aBd·full"of gnm~·." .. ':',· ., L ., .",- • n li~.l : '163: lYIr"Leggat' proposes :to put- a bolt through the'end'of them;, did he ,bolt any of the 3,000 ?-No, 'not any. 164, Bolting is provided for. in the' contract ?-Yes. ,,,, . '165. Did- you refuse to acc~pt bolting 7-1 do not think anyone did. I think only half-a- dozen sleepers in the whole arrangyment. were bolt~d, '" . • .• ~ f· • • I' • • , • i j" , ',:-... :.'" [Tlie mitness reddtlte.f0llo}~fng J~tt~r8, 11iz.'~ .2~8t Febrll,ary 187,7J :- t"T,oJohn Lunt,;Esq.',~ :' . ,', ,.. ' I .' Railway Works, Berwick, District Engineer. 21st February 1877. SIR, i' . • " ' .. . In consequence of the cxtreme'scverity of Mr. Iuspector 'Styles I have this day been compelled to stop further work to the plate laying and ballasting, and as 1 have good reason to believe. tbaL~~r. Styles is unfairly exercising the power (: p,l:.iqeq ,in,h~s ~Hl.Uds', ,and is using it not simply for the purpose of securing good work, but to grfttify private animosity, 1 have to request that you. will cause.an·immediate inquiry to' be made, as the obstacles vexatiously thrown in my way are so great as to make it impracticable to proceed with this portion of the contract, ;, . . I 'v I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, (Signed) JAMES LEGGAT. Letter dated 32nd February 1877 read. 'i'" ,;,,' " ," Gippsland Line, Memo. for Mr. Leggat. Berwick, 22nd ];'ebruary, 1877. ·1 forwarded a copy of yours of ·yesterday. to 'Mr, Inspector Styles, ·in ul!swer to which he states that he has not r.\lject~d a,ny slC!"pers that are in accordance with the specification. . ". . If he !lfi~ promiscuously done so as you state he has, I shall be glad to have them· pointed out to me with a view of having them ilsed ·in the road.' , !'" ~, ,.- : . ;',-~" ';'At the sa)iCe"titiie Pwisli to"draw your particular 'atte'(ition to'ciause,No. 47 of the specification·.o£.yourcontract• • " . '(Signed) JOHN LUNT, District Engineer. 166.' Where is1\1i': Styles ?---.:He is in New South Wailes. He went' a short time' ago. " ~'l .:.167,·,cHad hel been the; h!spectpr lof .:this line all through ?~Only the plate-laying. ,. L :L', 168'.' Was 1\1r; Styles dismissed/From the department ?-No,.he was not., , 169. Did he retoign ?-He left when that work was completed. 170,. In 1\1rs. Leggat's petition it is stated, "Your petitioner further alleges that during the ~xecu~ion of the cor~tr~c.~ l~r~e 9u.antities,?f ;naterial.for fencing, in, strict accordance with the speClficatwns, were ol;Jtamed 'by tlie saId James'IJeggat, and although such materials were approved 6f ahd" pass'ed 'oy tHt('snperiiiteflding': officer, nevertheless, large portions of the fencing, after its "J~l'e~t~0R-"by t,he sai4."Jlf,w.e~ 1L.~gg~t in strict acco~dance '\\;'ith the specifications and plans, were "unf~irly, and imprope.dj r~i~cted aud C9'!l.dgmneq by the superintending .officer and' ordered by him • to ·pe'removed and'taken down"withoutany reasou;whatsoever, thereby causing great and serious loss a1id damage to the said James Leggat." Your attention ,is Pl1rticularly directed to these :w:ords .that suchmaterialsjir'were.ol'dered,·tp .be rflmoved and taken down without any reason what ,~oeve~,," ~fte,~ such materials had been approved of. First of all was it approved of ?-It was never approved of. " " ,.' , , i c>, • I( ,~.(; ",17.1. Is, it usual to condemn or: pass .the material before the fenct) is er.ected ?---It is usnal to ,r'pasS!-i~ if aecording:tospeci1ication,; bubthis ,,;as"in~the,!time. of :M:acNeil,:.andihe instructed his menh{o'take no notice of me or any of the inspectors. We could not stand there and knock the men dOWJl"Wi.tb-.1lt ~t~cJr;,p~qau,se,he s.aid,that. . '8 John Lnnt, continued, 172. rou would have your remedy when he applied for payment?-We did not pay for it, 20th Jan. 1880. but ordered him to pull it down again. 173. If a man has taken a position of that kind, and does not do all thino-s in accordance with his specification, have you not power to stop his progress payments, and can~el his contract:? -The payments were stopped. ' _ 1.14. What kind of fencing was it ?-A post and two rails, and near the stations a post and three rails. ' ' 175. No wire ?-Wire only in a portion of it. , 176. Where is the first notice served upon him to take down the fencing ?-The first notice was verbal. 177. The second notice in writing ?-I believe so. 178. Why should not the second notice have been verbal too ?-If Mr. MacNeil had done the thing properly, he wonld not have required notice at all; I had reported it to Mr. ,Watson. 179. 'l'be specification defines that the notice shall be in writing; bnt instead of that you gave a verbal notice,' and allowed the evil to intensify. Where is the first notice ?-All the letters are here. 180. They should have been classified. Every letter relating to the sleepers and every letter relating to the fencing should have 'been classified so that you could have laid your hands on them at once ?-Here is a letter dated 6th September 1875. Sm, Gippsland Line, Berwick, 6th September 1875, I have again to request that you will at once remove the condemned timber (which is painted) out of bridge a.t 7m, 74c. 151., also from all other bridges which may contain condemned timber. . I have also to inform you that I have examined the railway fence, west of Dandenong, and find that none of it is put up according to plan and specification, the material and workmanship being bad and the posts not the proper distance apart. You will, therefore, be good enough to have the whole of this fence taken down at once, the improper material cast out, and the remainder erected in a workmanlike manner and according to specification: There is also a very large percentage of objectionable material and bad workmanship in the fence near Berwick. Please il,ttend at once to this. I shall be glad if yon will give me the name of the gentleman who has charge of the fencing on your bellalf. I have the honor to be, Sir, YonI' obedient servant, (Sd.) JOHN LUNl', District Engineer. 181. Is that the first notice in writing ?-I am not sure. 182. 'Ve want the first notice; however, let us ,hear what that is you have read-you refer to " painting," what does" painting" mean ?~Marking it. 183. Did you not say no timber was marked ?-No; only the fencing and bridges, &c., not the sleepers. 184. How much fencing was erected at this time ?-There might be a mile. 185. About a mile ?-I think so. ' 186. How long a time elapsed before you sent in this written notice after the verbal notice? -I could not say.--:[TltefoUolVing letter, dated 14tlt September 1875, mas read] :'-- Memo~ for Mr. Neil i:lcIcNeil. . Railway Department, Melbourne, 14th September, 1875. Mr. Lunt informs me that you have not removed the improper materials which yon were directed to remove on the 6th instant. I now send you instructions, duly confirmcd in accordance with clause 1 of General Conditions of your contract, and I have to inform you that, in accordance with clause 68 of the General Conditions, the Board will exercise its power, and, till such materials are rcmoved, withhold payment of all sums of money that may be due, or that may hereafter become due to you. . (Sd.) ROBT. WATSON, Residept Engineer. [The folloming letter, dated 1st October 1875, mas read]:- John l~unt, Esq., District Engineer.. .Dandenong, lst Oct. 1875. SIR,-I humbly ask of you to allow the condemned fencing to remain as it is. for the present, until the weather will permit me to get suitable timber to replace that condemned, which, I admit, is not according to specification. I guarantee that I will within six (6) wee)l:s from this date have the whole of the fencing re-erected to your satisfaction . I leuye myself altogether in your hands, as to its value to be retained from me in my progress payments, until such timc as the fence is to your satisfaction. By your acceding to my request J trust that you will cause all past misunder standings and grievances to be forgotten, and I further trust that harmony will continue to the eud of the contract, for which I will strivf', as far as lies in my power. I also wish, as a favor from you, that should any complaiuts ever be made to you, I may be at once informed of them in order that they may at oncc be immediately attended to, so that thus we may be able to work together for the future. Y onr favorable consideration will oblige. Your most obedient Servant, (Signed) NEIL MACNEIL. The following Memo., dated 22nd-September 1875, was read :- :Mcmo. for :\fr. Watson. - Railway Department, Berwick, 22nd September, 1875. In reply to NIr. McNeil's letter to you of 17th instant, in which he states that. he never refused to carry out any directions gi ven to him by mo, I beg to state that I wrote to him on thc 6th instant, requesting him to remove some improper materials from bridges, &c. Up to the present time he has not so much as acknowledged my letter in any way, uor yet did he offer to attend to my directions before he received your lctter of the 16th instant_ He also told Mr. Inspector Kerr that he would not remove this timber. and he threatened to have him dismissed from the Department if hc condemned his timber, and dare(l him to condemn any of the fencing. In Mr. Curtois' presence he said ~fr. Kerr was open to bribery, and that nothing but parliamentary interest could keep him in his sitllf,tion. .' Mr. MacNeil's statement that the reason he had not removed the condemned tImber becanse he could not procure proper materials in its place is I?ot ~orrect, for he was getting; timber in for similar bridg~s at the time. . Wilh rc(.(at·d to fence winch IS condemned, Mr. MacNeIl's son told Mr. Inspector 8cott t.hat they would not take It down, but would make a present of it to the Department-that the Engineer-in-chief would settle it for them on his return. (Sd.) .JOHN LUNT, 187. But that is anteJjor to the letter of Mr. '.J\tlacNeil, dated 1st Octgber ?-Yes. 9 John Lunt, 188. Do you know what Mr. Watson did upon that ?-I have here a letter by Mr. Watson, 'continul!d, dated 23rd September 1875.-[ The same was ~ead, and is as follows] :- 20th Jan. 1880., Memo. for Mr. Neil MacNeil. Engineer-in-Chief's Office, 23rd September 1879. , The improper materials referred to in my memo., dated 14th inst., incllJ.ding condemned fencing, must at once be removed or no further payments will be made. Mr. Lunt informs me that your son told Mr. Scott you would not remove the fencing. I am afraid it will be necessary to ask that your son may be removeq. from the works. The unsatisfactory manner in which you are carrying on your work, and your insulting conduct to the officers of the Department are much to be regretted. (Sd.) ROBT. WATSON, Resident Engineer. 189. Is it usual to compel contractors to remove condemned material ?-It is not. 190. Has it ever been done to yonr knowledge except at this time ?-I do not know a case of the kind. 191. All this is previous to Mr. MacNeil's letter of October 1st ?-Yes. 192. Mr. Leggat took over MacNeil's contract?-Yes. ' 193. Is the fencing referred to here as being officially dealt with the same mile of fencing as you have referred to ?-Yes. . 194. Is that the fencing alluded to in Mrs. Leggat's complaint ?-I cannot say. 195. Did the department accept Mr. Leggat as the contractor for this work ?-They did. 196. They revoked the contract so far as MacNeil was concerned?-Yes. 197. Is the allegation that Mrs. Leggat makes here on account of work executed during Mr. Leggat's time of contract referring to any condemned work in MacNeil's time ?-Very little has been condemned since Mr. Leggat took the contract. 19~. Had Mr. Leggat to take down any of the fencing he put up ?-He might, but very little. 199. All this material was supplied during MacNeil's contract ?-Yes. 200. Is that the f):mce that is really spoken of in this petition ?-Yes. 201. Are yon aware of any other dispute that existed in regard to the fenCing beyond this we are talking of now?-Very little. There might be a panel here or there that might have to be taken down. 202. Nothing that would involve a serious loss to Mr. Leggat after MacNeil had done? No, not after MacNeil had done. The witness nithdrem. Acijourned to to-morrow at eleven 0' alock. WEDNESDAY, 21ST JANUARY 1880. Members present: MR. NIMMO, in the Chair; Mr. Bell, Mr. Fraser, Mr. A. K. Smith, Mr. Dixon. Mr. Fincham, Mr. Vale was heard to state the case on behalf of lIrs. Leggat. John Lunt, further examined.- John Lunt, 203. By Mr. Vale.-I think you said you are district engineer?-Yes. 21st .Jan. 1880. 204. Perhaps, for the information of all parties, you will detail clearly and briefly yonr duties-not your present dnties, but your duties at the time of the contract ?-I had to take a general supervision of the works. 205. Did you lay them off on the ground ?-I did not. 206. Will you state from what point your supervision commenced, and where it terminated? -To see that the works are carried out properly, and to make measurements, and so ou. ' 207. Then your dnties commenced from the plotting off of the works until the issue of the final certificate ?-Yes. 208. And at the present time you are ?-Engineer for maintenance. 209. For the who~e colony?-Yes. , 210. You supervised, or did you supervise, the laying down oUhe permanent work that has been going on at the Spencer street station just lately?-No, I had nothing to do with that. 211. Whohad charge of that ?-Mr. Ford. 212. Will you mention the other works in Victoria over which you have been district engineer ?-A portion of the North-eastern line. 213. Whose contract-perhaps it would be best to state ?-Cain, Dalrymple, and Holtom. 214. Any other ?-No other. 215. Only that one prior to this ?-OnJy that one prior to this. 216. What were you previousJy to that ?-I was assistant engineer. 217. On what contract?-On O'Grady, Leggat and Noonan's. 218. Upon the North-eastern ?-Yes. - MRS. LEGG.AT. B 10 J"~'!;.Lunt. ." 219.,'! suppose you are fully,acqua;ined with the,rclass;J{)f·riilate6al, that ,has:beeIikused on 21i;r;:':i~~:-t8sO~' the other railways of the colony. ?~Some:,ofthem; n.ohthe.whole:; 1 could not ,telL; l"hl'tve-'not, ex~mined everything ~n, all th~ other,sontracts. .J, ','" ,'.'", , •• ;,. ,~.c: 220. But you know most of them?-Yes. ,. • j'. 221> And, fI;om.your pl~esent position y'ou have ,the '!. • 223: Did you know anything about Mr. MacNeil ?-No; never saw him before until a day or two before, I went up there. . 224. Had you heard anything ab9:ut hinl?-Yes, veJ;y little. ',,' , . . . , 225. 'Let us know what you did Ileal' ?...... :..I do .not kiiowwhat 1 heard.' . ':':' d 226. You had some. conversations about him ?-I do not know that I had any ,c6r;.'v~i'si\,tioh a~JOut ~im with anyone. Ido1not Jniow 'that;~nyon,g ni~nti~ped. ~ifu tb:~.~,.,~~f6re ~e inJ~oduced hImself to me at the Melbourne office. ' . " . , , , .• '. ' "',." I . ,. . . , . 227.' And no one ever made any repre'sentations 'about him to you as being a O'ood con- tractor ?-Not at that time. . . , e. 0 228. After?-;-Yes; as' being; a verybadcontractOl~;,' ,: ,..... " " . i '. 229. Tell u's ,vho g~ve YRU' that inform'a'tioi,l ?:...-:I coulrl: not t~ll you. l~: :'<.1 ~, ~ r" 230. Refresh your IIiemory '\ h~ve not',the s~ightesqde~: .:,' '. :~.': ''''" '. 2~1. You did g'et the in~ormation ?-Yes ;' Mr. Leggaftold me lie was a d old rogue., '232. That was afteriva'rds? ....: .... ::yes. '·· . ,", "',.1 "! ...... , I" .:~,." 'H'. , .233. After .they qllarrelle~, and that might. be the .reason ;. buJ, bef9re that ~-I could' not tell you." , ' ';" ~' , " " . '. d,,' 234. Will you say it wa.s not an officer of the deP!1rtmeIlt ?-Lcould not say. 235. Would you say it l"3;s not an ofij«el' of the, d'ep~itment ?:-lCbU)d not say so. 236. ,Shall I try and refresh your memory?---Y qu, lllay'.. . , , .". . 237. Do you know the last' contract prior to 'thistha:t Mr. Neil MabNeif had'?--.:.Yes: 238. Where was 'th~t ?.:...... The Ballarat' ahd Ararat line. 1"'.1'" t,,, , ; : I 239. ""no was over him there ?-Mr. Wrixon. .' . ,:' , 240. 'Did y'ou iyave' 'ahy c'oMel'sation wi'th Mr:' \VrUcdn ab6ht"hfill'?"::!':!might Have·;done. 241. Will you say you did not ?-No. .' . 242. Do you say Mr. Wrixon made ''ito representation about him ?-I say he might have done. 243. Now, as to these sleepers. I should like you to give the Committee a list of all the faults for which you rejected the sleepers ?-I stated what they were rejected for the other day, 244. You stated two reasons ?-They are rejected in consequence of being small. . 245. 1 ask what yon mean by being small ?-Not being the proper size. 246. Is half an inch under 9 inches too sma1l1-Yes. 247. Is that your idea ?-It is. , '., ... f 248. And you rejected for that ?--Yes. 249. Is that the uniform practice of the department elsewhere ?---It is. 250., And that WIlS prior to this contraet?....i.... Yes.-' : 251. Give us anotper instance of the eauses of rejection 7-Young timber. 252. Is there anyt4ing iIi the specification. about yqung, ti,n?bed-There is. 253. Is there; I think there is not ?-- : Mr. Billing.-Yes, there is sap in it. ' . .Mr. Vale.-He did not say" Sap in it,"-{The 1vitness riferred to the contract.] 254. By Mr. Vale.-It says, "trees of large growth" ?-Yes. 255. It does not say if the timbehs large enough to cut'sleepers out of, you are entitled to reject them?-Yes, if .there is' heart and sap'in them. ,f",:.. , 256. But I say to, clit sleepers. " I~ ,you cut sleepers they are cut·sound,?-If tliere is heart and sap in them they are,rejected.·' . ' .",,: -" "", ,," " , ;" 257. Now give us another reason ?-I~ they spl~t. '. ' . -. 258. Now what do you mean by "split~' ?~Spht perhaps a foot from the end or more. 259. Arid you rejected sleepers in this contract because' :they"split at the 'ends ?~Wheil they were split-badly. I ~:' " .,., 260. Did you take any that wel'e split at theends?-There are lots of th~m in',the road now. , : >/. : i :l61. I daresay, after three or five years, they are likely to be ?-,-But they were put in at the time. . . , .. 262. Is it not usual, if the timber of the country where-the line passes ,through islike]y to .split at the' ends,· to: have them bolted ?-They may be.bolted. '::-' ,f 11:' ,,: ":.\ ".~'I 263. Answer the question. If the timber of· the cOlmtry,through wliich the railway passes is likely to 'split at the ends, where they are exposed to, the sun,' is it not thepr'actice of the authorities to have the sleepers bolted ?-It is. " , 264. Is not the, bolt1ngusually a concession l1iade to the contraetor.?-:7'I :dolllot kn'ow that· ... "i ,,' • itis. f 265. Do you say it is not ?-It is not in some cases. . ; I , 266. It is the practice, but there are some exceptions; is not that the.-way':to put it:?-[ No answer.] . , . ')' f\ ,-;'r '.. ,,. 11 .,' '267. I win as,k!yon one'questiorr'-'-! :".; "',' Jonn'Lunt, (Qntm!i~,-: llfr. Billin,q objected.. ., , . . . ('. . " . '~ht Jan. 1880, wl")o.; "-'268: B 'Mr; gale)...... ,;;.I will,'.ask you' thIS questIOn': ;Is It not 'a fact ·that, on one sectIOn of the Gip d'line,;under identica'lly'the.same'contract as this one/that 16,000 sleepers were bolted ?-I elieve they are all bolted upon one section. ' , .' .' . ' . ,', " 269. That is1arger still., Bolted because the timber, from its ,character, :vas likely to splIt upon exposure cannot say what they are bolted for; 1 have nothmgto do WIth that. : 270. Is there'any'other Ireasonfol'bolting than their liability to split ?-Thei:e are sleepers bolted upon that section that would not split. ,. ' . ' :,] .: '1,;1271. Is it not the:1isual and,'regular,'method'of'railway construction only'to bolt sleepers that are likely to split ?-I do not know, I am sure. . ':,~ .,'.r,,,29'2:' Do n'ot play .. with, mY' tignorance', of, .. engineering. Answer, the 'question," and the Committbce ¥vb'illl Jd'udge of its merits ?-.,.It taltogeth~t':dependsupon: whet~er the engineer directs ,them to e 0 te or not. ,: :", ',. , "',' " - :'., 273. Is, it not'a canon of good railway construction-?'-It is. . ,- :i'·." ',274.' You answer the question before 1 put iti and therefore there is: not much value in your ·answer,I·,!s. it'll(~ta cantmiof 'good railwaj'construction,to,bolt sleepers t~atare likely to 'split a;t ,the ends if. exposed, to the~sun:.:..:...:that is:!an' engineering"question ,the 'answer to which affects you ;and' noti,me imthe least·?....:...Yes, :they would bolt, them. '} . , ,t ' , . ~),W'l' ,;,27fh·N6w"I.ask.the Committee i specrai11y to"nete that;!that it is· a canon of good railway construction tOdbolt sleepers, which ate likely. ~to' sp'lit 'upon ,exposure., 1 think, yesterday, in question 165, you said you never refused the privilege to Mr. Leggat to bolt' them 7-""1 am not aware thatI did. ,,' " '. ' '" ' ' 276. I ask that the Chairman will allo~ you to be shown that question ?-[Th'e same mas read by the. Chairman:];' ',' ':'",' ,':';: '/ "j"\' " ' By the Committee.-He does not say they refused to accept,bolting; , . i ," ,·2,77.;By Mr.' Vale ..:....:.N'ow I'askyowtQ look at'Mr. Leggat's,]etter' of the' 24th of :January 1877, and read that-r the same mas read]. " " ," , 278. Read the first clause of that letter ?-[ The' milnes8. "1'ead :the same~ 'as fotloms:-J " As 81llargennmber'ofhleepers which,I1have'provided do not come up to the,demands of the speeifica tion; the defects .in :manY1of which 'have resuilted Ifromexp'osure, to the weather, I beg respectfully to~ask·if you:will allow me, to: use :thosewhieh I are partially split by 'bolting them as shown in specification." , l :' , 279. Now look at the next letter, of the 29th January, 'which is the answer to that you did not condescend even to take notice of the question of bolting. ' Read the letter, or inform the Committee whether you took. any notice of i~[The mitness'read the same.-Vide question 154J. (lL, :, 280. 'Now I would like you to tell the 'Committee the way in which you supervised, either by yourself or by your subordinates, the acceptance of' sleepers on behalf of the Government on this contract ?-The sleepers were passed as they were put upon the road. 281. And they were put upon the permanent way ?-Yes. ' " ,282.' Or ,the earthworks; which ?-On .the permanent way. ' J'''iq, ",283. It is my ,ignorance, I know. I would 'like'to 'be'clear'about'it. ' Do you mean by the permanent way after the metal was put upon the earthworks ?---;.No, before that.. 'They were laid upon the longitudinal timbers. .' , , 284. In this case they were ?-Yes, but I may state that a very large numbe'r of sleepers ha?! to be taken out because'they were put in, in the: first place, to get, the line' laid to Berwick, ,to brmg the plant on; and ,they used all sorts 'of sleepers, bad and good. ' " , 285. You say they used bad and good? -Yes. :,':,,, t" 286., Under what conditions ?"-Under the conditions that they should take them out again. 287. Where was that indicated; is there' any written document of that sort ?-Nothing of the sort. ' ' : .: 288. I asked you distinctly was there any written application on the part of MacNeil or Leggat to put bad sleepers,on the permanent-way ?-They asked me if they could do it, and I said yes. ' ,11\ ,289. At what date, could not give the date. 290. Is it not a fact that the correspondenee as to using the railway for the Purp9se of ,taking material'from'Oakleigh on 'towards Berwick was in writing, and that there is no mention ,in that correspondence,of using,bad sleepers ?-It was in writing, but it was after that. 291. Is there a single word in writing about bad sleepers ?-No. ,,292~ And all the other correspondence-your refusals, your suggestions, and your demands are ran in writing, except this one?-I do not know. [At Mr. Vale's request the question mas read by the Shorthand Writer from his notes.J \;, \ : 293.'W~re none of those sleepers paid for as they lay upon the ground?-Yes, they were. 294. Patd for before approval ?-Yes. 295. Is that a usual course ?...... :.It is. L.:):j '296. The regular and usual course to pay for material, and to allow it to be put on site on' the earthworks before it is approved?-Yes. ' , ~rI' ,297. Will you'giveus,any cases where that was done?~On every contract in the colony. 298. On every cOlltract?-Yes. , :,.' 299. Bad sleepers are to be attached to the rails, for I presume that was doner-Before the sleepers are put near the rails they'put them in,staclis,'and the advance is made upon stacks, fHHt a certain percentage is kept back. . , 12 John Lunt, 300. But after that stage, when they are put upon the line, that stage covers the advance wntinued, :M~t Jan. 1880. upon the material upon the ground ?-Yes. 301. That stage covers the advance on material, bnt when they get on to the earthworks or on to the metal they then become part of the construction, do they not ?-They do. 302. And you give a much heavier advance ?-Yes. . 303. And did not you give that heavier advance on those sleepers from OakleIgh to Berwick ?-I did not; not upon the whole of them. 304. But upon the larger proportion ?-I did upon the larger proportion. 305. Can you tell us an instance from your papers where you made a deduction for bad sleepers, so that we might get the average ?-They go along, and if they get a bad sleeper it is not counted. 306. But can you give us from your return an instance where you made a notification of this practice, or made a deduction ?-I do not think I can. 307. If you look at the first day's evidence, at question 33, the question begins at the .end of 32 :-" Supposing another engineer had been appointed in your place to supervise the works after this dispute 'had taken place, would it not have been very difficult to prove that notice had been given at all, unless it had been in writing, or how could the Government satisfuc torily account for notice having been given at all ?-The inspector examined the sleepers, and objected to a number of them at the time. It would be impossible to go and give notice about every sleeper that had to come out, in writing. 33. But this is a large amount ?-These were condemned in Mr. MacNeil's time, before Mr. Leggat." What do you mean by that ?-I mean the sleepers at Berwick and Cardiuia Creek. 308. As to the number ?-I could not say what the number was. There was a great number there. 309. But we were talking all through the evidence of the 15,000 sleepers-are you aware? -These are a portion of the 15,000. 310. But we were talking of the 15,000, and your statement was that they were rejected in MacNeil's time ?-So they were. 311. The 15,000 ?-No, they were not. 312. But that is your statement, and it is in the evidence; and the whole enquiry of the Committee up to that stage was about 15,000, and you say they were condemned in }IacNeil's time. Now what is the fact-that up to that time there had been few comparatively rejected, not half. Is not that correct ?-I suppose it is, as you say so. 313. I do not say so, I ask you ?-I could not say what was rejected at the time. 314. Have you your diaries here ?-Yes. 315. Look at them, and see if they will refresh you.-[ The mitness riferred to certain boo/r,s.] 316. What is the ordinary method of rejecting a sleeper. How is it signified to the contractor ?-It is marked. 317. With what?-A piece of chalk or something. 318. A sperm candle for instance?-Yes. 319. Then of course if it is marked with a sperm candle, there would be a probability of those sleepers rejected getting on again ?-They would be marked with a sort of yellow ochre upon that line, stuff made with wax and yellow ochre. 320. Are you sure they were not marked with a candle ?-I am not sure, but I believe that was the stuff principally used. 321. But that was afterwards. You say 17,000 sleepers were rejected upon the contract, which involved about 70,000 to be used ?-I did not say that 17,000 were rejected. . 322. How many were rejected 7-1 do not know. 323. Will you find out?-I do not know; it is impossible for me to find out. I do not know how many sleepers were brought upon the ground. 3~4. You were superintending officer, you ought to have some returns to show?-We had only returns of the sleepers that were accepted. 325. By tIle Committee.--Is it the case that advances of. money are made upon material that has not been examined ?-The sleepers are put in stacks, and we advance upon those, and count how many there are, and take a percentage off for defective ones, and advance upon, the balance. 326. Do not you distinguish between approved material and other; how much do you advance-75 per cent. is it; do you distinguish between rough material and prepared material ? Yes, certainly. 327. What is the advance you make upon unprepared material ?-Different amounts. 3:l8. After you make the advance do you retain the power still to condemn the material ? Certainly we do. 329. I want to see the clause that says that ?-[ The contract mas handed to the Honorable Member.] 330. A sleeper is prepared material, is it ,not 7-Yes, it is. 331. By l."tlr. Vale.-You mean the Committee to understand that before the sleeper is put under the raq, it is cut and damaged for all m~rcantile purposes, and therefore the Government are fully entitled to approve before they allow it to be put there.:....:.did you ever reject any sleepers for over size ?-N 0, I did not; if they were oversize they were cut, if they were too long they were shortened. 382. Did you ever reject any for being too wide, over 9 inches ?-I am not aware that ever I did. 13 . 333. Did you ever reject any for gum veins ?-Yes. Jobn Lunt, tmltlnued. 334. Is there any provision in the contract for rejecting for gum veins ?-There is not. 21st Jan. 1880. 335. And yon did reject them for gum veins ?-A few; they would split afterwards. 330. Bnt yen rcjected for gum veins which is not in the specification ?-- Mr. Billing.-If they do not appeal' to him to be good, if they have gum veins or anything else, he may ;reject. 337. By Mr. Vale.-You invariably rejected if they were cut upon the quarter ?-All the sleepers cut upon the quarter, if they were good, were put in the road. 338. Yon re:jected no' sleepers simply because ~f a cut upon the quarter ?-No, I did n?t. Inspector Styles rejected them when they were cut upon the quarter, and afterwards I told hIm they were to go in. 339. In fact a lot were put down cut upon the quarter in the Spencer-street station in the last few weeks ?-Yes, for temporary purposes. 340. Is not the line upon which the .Williamstown train runs perma.nent?-Yes. 341. Are there no sleepers cut upon the quarter there ?-It is a different kind of sleeper altogether. 342. That is not the question. The question is are they not cut upon the quarter ?-1 do not know. . 343. Do not you know that your junior officers frcquently rejected sleepers cut upon the quarter, and callsed them to be taken out of the work; and you allowed them to be pnt into the work ?-Yes, I did. 344. After all the trouble was given to the contractor ?-They were never fixed to the road; very few were done that way. I told him to let them go in the first complaint I heard of it. 345. I do not know what his objection is, but you rejected them because they were adzed. I presume that that means that they were cut down to bring them to size ?-'-:'1 am not aware that I rejected any for being adzed. If they were bad sleepers they were rejected. 346. Did you reject any that were adzed before they went into the line, and take them out; and when you saw them afterwards yon could not but admit that they were good sleepers, but because they were adzed before you would not let them go in again ?-1 am not aware that ever I did so. 347. You cannot say that you did not ?-I could not say that I did or did not. 348. By the Committee.-1s it not generally allowed that adzing a sleeper puts a skin upon it tliat it cannot have off the saw ?-Yes; but that is not what Mr. Vale means. 349. But if a sleeper is fairly adzed is it not superior to one off the saw?-It is. I prefer .it. It lasts longer. . 350. By Mr. Vale.-I believe there was another objection as to sleepers. There is a practice of cutting a little out of the sleeper, so as to give a sort of fixity to the rail ?-Yes. 351. What is your rule as to rejecting sleepers if the rail did not I1bsolutely fix true 7- They were to be taken out and made to be true. 352. If it was a little larger than it should be, what then ?-Which way? 353. I suppose the outer side ?-Suppose the space adzed out of the sleeper to put the rail on were too large, what would you do ?-It ought to be rejected. 354. And it was rejected ?-I am not aware whether it was or not, but it ought to be. 355. Is that the usual practice ?-It is. 356. You rejected some for fungus, did you not ?-1 do not know that I ever saw any .fungus upon any of them. 357. No sleepers were tendered which were rejected for fungus ?-I do not know, but they might be rotton. -. 358. Fungus and ratton are different,because sound wood might have fungus if it lay in the bush in a warm summer, might it not 1-[No answer.] 359. I think I have shown the Oommittee the number, variety, and force of the objections raised to the sleepers; and now I would like to ask whether you know from whom the contractor obtained those sleepers ?-I do not. 360. You know he obtained them from all quarters of the colony?-From different placeg. 361. In fact, he made such a variety of selections that it showed an evident determination to' get good sleepers, did it not ?-To get very bad ones. 362. Then you mean to say that the persons who supplied MacNeil and Leggat were persons who supplied bad sleepers ?-They were the worst sleepers I ever saw in the colonv. 363. Then if Oorbett and Son sent sleepers they were bad sleepers ?-A large portion of them were very bad. . 364. Did Quiggan supply bad sleepers ?-I do not know. 365. Do you know Oook t-Yes. 366. Do you know Blair ?-Yes. 367. Did they supply bad sleepers ?-They supplied both bad and good. 368. The Telegraph Saw Mills?-I do not know where they are. 369. Barrabarra, Echuca ?-Yes, I know them. 370. Do they supply bad or good ?-They have supplied very bad ones. 371. At one stage of the contract did not Mr. Leggat ask the department to appoint a man in Melbou~e to approve of sleepers ?-1 believe he did. 3;72;;-Do not you know it; do not give beliefs when Sou know ?-He did. , 373. And you refused to do it ?-I did not know. It was the people in Melbourne that did it. I knew nothing uf it. 14 •.jJ OhUrLullt, 374. And after this perSQn in MelbQurne-the GQvernment,man~apprQved the sleepers, ;wmi,,~, :lll~t .JaIl. 1880. YQU rejected th'e"sleepers ?-Yes.:·, . ,375, ,,:B,r/!theililhairman.": :\Vere -many, sleepers sO. ' appro.ved. in: Mel bQurne?-N 0., verJ few Qf them; Qnly just.the Jatter:·part.Qf the.contract.i: 'il,Y.. . : I. ;'•. C "L ".1' .' """ .• ,,37.6. cOnly ,the latter part ?-That is all ;'J.very;·few. 377. By A-f?'. Vale.-A large number o.f sleepers used in this cQnstruction were redgum, :.:w'ere,they, no.t?:lt7.;There.are sQme;,I co.uld nQt tell the percentage. _ ~ '1' ' 378. A large proportion·?~Not atlarge~'proportion~ .. ~' :.'. .' "" . 'i 1'1,'; _.' t' . 1 .ziOI' ()ii37j)., \[s,notr,therea fQurth,Ol~ nearly so. ?-Ido. nQt believe sO.; I think nothing like!a fQurth. (I'm /)1\380. Is:.it, no.t·between·,alfQurthnQr la·fifth:?,...... :I do. nQt know tha,tit is. so. much as that... , F':' 381. If we prove that there is between a. fQurth and a fifth it proves that yQU lQQked UPQn :the ,CQntractQr .rathell'.black:v.. ?-;,:-1 do. nQt knQw .that., ...W e did nQt·.ask him to. give redgum sleepers. 382. By the Committee.-Were many redgum,sleepers rejected ?-:-NQt very many; .• ,' 'J' 383.I,By-.M1~;::-Vale .. "':"" Will..you· saY,M'lhat'percentage yQU mean by nQt very many ?-1 could 'n()t"tell yQU ... ' ::~;.;·f.~'·),. i : ." ,",1 :~. ' " .~ '.; t·' ",' :;.,; >. .. . , 384. These lQQse terms when a gentleman is 'so strict over a contract are rather unsatisfae: ,oor;y:,·an d,,J so:i,t is:i.to. .. have.a I gentleman :answer. f,l!lL believe," or ,~ I cannot -tell." I belieVie that a co.nsiderable po.rtio.n o.f thQse rejected sleepers were taken at 2s. 6d.-is nQt that cQrrect ...-:-'-No., 3s;, ,)n:~ £u·.;38fk NO"hYQJi.,tQQk them'at>,2s.I:6d.;:and. after.,that they were amended tQ.3s . .?-I have 'PQthing ,to. p,D .with~;the final adjustTI.lent. .,' ...:.. 'I; .",'J 1.. ', ;':. .',. ,;. ·:c 1.• ]\\ 386. Were they nQt taken at 2s. 6d.?-Three shillings were paid fQr them:, :,~;" ; l,,';I') (,381:.' Keep·}tQr.the,question... -Y0u only.passed ,themlat:2s. 6d; ,1 ask did nQt;yQu.pass thQse mQre ,than 3;000 ato2s. 6d. ?-UpQn my wQrd I cannQt tell yo.u: ,~. " . ;" .i).'. x l'.J,: 388; ·WilhJw.u·JQQk~ at yQur ,papel's;,. and that,will ShDW whether I am correct, fQr,I happen .to:Jkuow/,that 'youl,Qiily ,passed, them at·.2s; 6d.,1 and that. the dep!1rtment afterwards raised .them to 3s. ?-[Some papers were produced-and handed to the witness.] . .' ) ; ;!\'~.: ';I,389;,;T'hese ,3,000. were 'not aLL redgum?-':c:;There :is ,a .'pro.g-vess payment. Up011. the sleepers, and ]!'advanced:2s. 6d.. .upon them until thepro.per price was adjusted., " ..,' , .:. .I'. i ',::;-;'J ,\390.,,'~y!,thedZ'ommittee.--f-:-HQw,imany,?.....:-:-TwQ,.thQusand se~en hundred andfQrty;-seven",'and Mr. HiginbQtham . sted the price. . H .i'li.b 891. IJ.'l/l:Mr. a!e.:+-:i:But among the 15;000. that remained,Qf,ll-k,Leggatt's,there ;\v:as 15 0.1' ,2DJper icent.Df:r,edgum (-:-;-NQ. '- .. :l,: ' . . ,"I!I ,\\ .. : '. :t'., '-~ .\1;' U' '" • _ :L . 392. Have.. there; been' any, cases under the BQard Qf Land and W Qrks where perSQns have used,;redgum.sleepers';-;-;redgnmlllQt being, ther,timber, so. ;tQ spea,k, Qf:.thecDnntry,rand they have been allQwed a co.mpensatio.n fQr redgum, because the life Qf a redgum sleeper is a,bQut a half tQa thir,d.mo.re thanl~n:,Qrdinary sleep.e:r.?~Yes;;Ibelieve;there are.,',. -:,".; -' ,', .\, • . ;3.93. And:1s:{2d. h.as been allQwed, i;; that.it ?....,.-'-I cQuldnQt.teUyoun :i ,.,(,. 'J::1".,l "d'," ;,394. YQU cDuld :find,Qut.?~I cQuld·find·out: ." :,' . . I'" 395. And no. allowance o.f that SQrt was made;tQ Mr. Leggat ?-r-:-NQthing was.allQwedhim:;' 396. Yo.u:il~yer recQmmended .anyallQwance ?-Let. 'me explain. In all, cases where aava.nce~ds.lllade40J;,.aredgum.sleeper, the, <;lDntractQr is'suPPQsed to. :find althird,redgum.,sleepers accQrding to. this specificatiDn, and .the· .Qthers are paid fQr at an .advanced price.. ". ,'".::-r ,'.',.' ,h.397;.· ByiltllerCommittee.-We dQ:.nQt understand ?~It says here.,,--":The .sleepers are to. be prQvided and delivered Qn the wQrks where required.for use ·by .thelcQntractQr, and are to., be of red g)lm,... i,r.on bark,i messmate, ·,peppermint,. bQx, ',0.1'. Qther. a pp;ro.ved 'hardwQod, at the discretiDn o.f the Engineer-in-Chief, sound, cut frQm trees Qf large grQwth, free frQm heart,. sap, and;.fromJl1:vg'e kJlQts tan9-' sha:kes:·Q:E. every .description, andimust. be, straight .. @n . each. face, and o.ut Qflwinding. They are to. be rectangular, 9 (nine) inches by 4i (fQur and a half) inches in sectiQn, and 8 ft.· 6 in. (eight Jeet anQu six:;i.nches) in, length;. allQwance,mr,tst. be:.made in·.. cutting fQr shrinkage, and, at any time befQ£e the cQmpletiQn Qf the contract; any sleepers which are fQund to. .vary mere ;than'Ja q1.lal'tef;o.f :an·ihch&.Qm the.stipulated.-sectiQnaldimenslOns ·in cQnsequence o.f shrinkage will be rejected" No.; w.hitegum sleepers L,:i~L ,be.·received.H 1 !JThe. usual waY'UPQn Qther' CQntracts is "tliat they can take redgnm as equal to. ll'Qnbark. ,',' I': '" .1 ".i,i·;, ,:,:;.; , !ilu ,:>:1,:: 398. "Is:irQnbark.equal to. redgum ?...,-Yes, and beUer.: . , ..,' _ llU;j :":I39l~; -Is :nllt :the duration .Qf irQnba,rk nineteeny:ears,and,fifty~six. to. fifty-seveu years redgum,... accQrding to. the mQst apprQved tables ?-There, is a very largelpro.PQrtiQn o.f redgumrQtten in;the l.i!les atj~.the. presentfltime, and.. irQnhark. is .. superiQr., They are supPQsed to.· have l half credgum. They caIl'lask fe.n half'.redgumlanal':irQnbarkl according.. to" .this specificatiQn,. and, the. Engineer?in.. Chief gives an adv.ance UPQn the Qthers. . ".. .' ','. 400. If the sleepers are wQrth 4s. 6d. they give them 2s. 3d. advance ?--,.Yes,; sQmething,Qf thatsQrt. ..11 .,. :ll!... · •..... \, .. , -, '. i, .. " 40L Half the sleepers go. at the Qriginal schedule price, and the o.ther half, ifo.f .redgum 0.1' iro.nbark, they get an advance uPQn ?-Yes; 0.1' if they ,are to', have au advanceDf a shilling uPQn thQse they give them sixpence o.n ,the whQle)o.t.· ... : .._ . , .," ": 402. Y QU co.nsider this',clause ,about sleepers to. mean .that as redguPl,. irQnbark, peppermint, messmate, and bQX are stated here, the Engineer~in.,Chief can-·elect which of tho.se qualities he will take ?-He can demand equal. proportiQns.,;. ',,",-, .) . ", .. l' ., 1.1 403. Wh.erel!","Claqse 4 7. ,i,. '.. :, .....: .', ii, . 'I J \.1 t, 404, We understand you to. say that'·the·Engineer-in.. Chief; 'Qr the resident engineer'with his san?tiQn, c~n. : " '" ,Mr. Vale.-1 quite 'admit that tliere is a great ;dealiIi wh:a;Uhe'question biihgs"bnt" av:d J'J~,~\il!t~ll, I ask that the question and answer may be read., " J " ; . " I . "I 21~r'f~~tr880. 406. By tlte Committee.-=-Did the Engineer-in':"Chief,'oTItlie residenbmgineer, elect WhICh timber was to be taken ?-N:o; in ~his particular case he never asked: anyth,ing at all ~bout'the; timber. ' .': -" " .;t", ':" ';",' " " :' "',,, '" - "'" :' \ .. 407. Did the contractor' ever ask (-He got· whatever timber h!-lliked' except whitegum. He'never was allowed to get';vhite'gum. 'He was'n~vet,asked·t6getredguinlsleepers. :.) JL,J!:",:: 408. By Mr. Vale.--;l would like t9 bring Mr. Lunt back to tlie sixth question on ,the "18tli i of, December. I will read, it':""""[ihe same was 1'eadas follows] Which of those kinds of'timber did the engineer select"-redgum, messmate, and stringybark sleepers, &c. Now the engineer in that clause clearly must be' the Engineer-iri-Chief mentioned in the fifth'question, because he is the only engineer mentioned"thus far at that stage of the examination, so ldo not know which is; C01Tect. Which is correct,. ,the; statement you -make to-day that the Engineer-in-Chief'madEH.lo selection, or the statement' made: upon the 18th -:December that, the, engineer (who must :be' tlieJ Engineer-in-Chief from the fifth and sixth questions taken together), selected redgum, messmate, or stringy bark" ?-He did not, so far as I am aware. ' ! ' 409. You say he never made any election at alP-He did not to my knowledge. ' 410. Now has not the uniform practice of .the department been in letting a contract with this clause of the specification to take the good timber of the country through which the railway passes for sleepers ?-Yes,-ifit is not-,-', i '" .:: " ' ," r.',' , ,411: Wait, now,] will'ask 'another question-:is, it not-'_., .... :' \ ;-'-" , , j '. " "' .. ,;' Mr. Billin!1 o~iected. , , - 412. B.Y Mr. Vale.-Is it not a fact that within the last two or thre'e years this cl~use as to sleepers has been altered,. and you have specified proportions of different kind of sleepers ?-[No answer.] ..':.1 ,', .. , .. 413. You know it is Mr. Lunt ?-1 do not kno'w indeed. ,,' , 414. Was not it done under Mr. Wells (-I do n'ot l~now that it was. I have not looked at the ,specification fOl' eighteen months or two years. , :.' 415. By M1'. Billing.-Yon were saying "bue' something or othet'?-But whitegum. The best :tirnbeI~ in the district but whitegu.m, whitegum is not1allowcd; , " 416. By Mr. Vale.-That is nothing new, you already said that the tail end of the 47th clause of the conditions specifies that rio whitegnm shall ,be' taken under: any conditions, showing- clearly that nny timber of the country may be taken except whitegum? ' Mr. Billing o~jected. ;1 " " ' 417. By Mr. Vale.-You have been over the other sections of the Gippsland line, and you know them ?-Yes. 418. ,What is the character of the sleepers upon ,them ?-There is redgum. 419. How much in 30 miles ?-I cannot tell you. I have not the slightest idea. 420. Is there n mile in the next section ?-No, there is not a mile in the middle contract. 421. The sleepers there ,are alniost entirely the sleepers or the country?-Yes, principally stringybark. ' : :, .. . 422. 'By the' Committee.-Whose contract was that, please ?-'-Fishbourn and Morton's. ", 423., 'By Jyir. Vale.-Will you tell me the proportion upon the next section that were bolted because they were liable to split ?-1 could not. 424. Do you think it is likely that 60,000 or 62,000 of proportion for 30 miles were bolted ?-1 could tell you to-mortow. I could not tell you now.' " 425. You know,~ larg~ proporti?n w!lre bolted ?-! kn~wa proportion are bolted: . 426. From your InspectIon of the permanent way you linow'that the sleepers upon that hne are mainly bolted ?-1 know a large number of them are not bolted. 427. But the greater portion of them are bolted ?-I think not.. You have got upon the wrong section. The next section to that they are nearly alI bolted., " . , ';. . '428. The following'section that went' into Sale was subdivided into two contracts, was not it ?"":""'I do ,n'ot think'it.." . .. '",r , ,: ',' " 429. Are we nt cross purposes over spiking and bolting. There is a difference between spiking and bolting, is there not ?;-Yes, certainly. ' ',,' 430. I have already pointed out that Tam 'not an engineer, and I hope the witness will not give me an unfavorable impression by taking a point of that sort. We only want to know what were thecoriditions exacted fro'mthe contractoi'supon the other lines. Now the timber of the country was taken upon the next section beyond this, and there the timber had to be bolted. MacNeil's was the' first, .Fishbourn and'· Morton,'swas the second, alid the third was subdivided? -No; the middle section wo.s subdivided. 431. Take the third section. There is not a redgum sleeper thereP....:.-1 do not think there is. 432. No; tlie timber o~'the 'country was takt::n uniformly: Can you tell us the proportion of sleepers rejected ?-There ,were thousands 'rejected' there. ." 433. And thousands bolted ?-1 can tell to-morrow. 434., There are ft, large n.umbe,r bolted ?-Yes. I ' : L. :,l;l~435. 1\:ndr upon our lineth'ere'is scarcely one boltedi'?--LNo. ':' 436. Now I bring you to the little trifling matter of the,longitudinal sleepers- , 437. "By the 'Cominittee.:"';'Wjlat distance i~ there"between the sleepers ,?..LAbout 2 feet 6 incbesicentres: :.1(, 0;\ '" r; " ' , ',. ,": 'i .t , ': .. 438. I What is the practice of bolting. Is it not-abandoned: now unless it is 'seen that it is necessary?":"';'"Yeidt, is;"") >:' I' 16 John Lunt, 439. Are we right in stating that it is confined to those that actually split or show signs of e ------,~--~ .. -' 17 . , 475. By il:[r. Vale.-Could you have fastened the rails upon the North-Eastern line with Jobll Lunt.. continued, the peculiar fastening that was used without using the longitudinal timbers ?-You could not. 2let .Tnn. lS~O. 476. Aud, after fastening them, you laid the sleepers with the fastened rails u1,on the earthwork, and then took the longitudinal timbers out ?-I do not know. 477. You know that was done in some cases ?-I do 'not know that it ever was done. 478. But you do know that there was a speciality in the fastening of the North-Eastern line?-Yes. 479. Which did not occur in this line?-Yes, but it has been done on other lines since then. 480. Where ?-Upon the Portland line, for instance. 481. To what extent ?-I do not know to what extent, but it was done any way. 482. I should like to know the extent ?-I could not tell yon. 483. By the Committee.-Has not the platelaying on some contracts in Victoria been carried out on the formation level ?-I could not say, I am sure. I am not myself aware of any. l. know the Engineer-in-Ch~ef would not allow it. There is his letter to show he would not allow it upon this particular line, and Mr. Watson's letter too. 484. By Mr. Vale.-Was it done upon the Colac line?-I do not know. 485. Or upon the Stawellline ?-No. 486. Nor the Dunolly line ?-I am not aware. 487. You are not aware that it was not done there by laying the line upon the formation level ?-No, I could not say, indeed. ' 488. Did not you direct the contractors to lay the sleepers upon the 9-inch bearings 1- I did, by order of the Engineer-in-Chief. . 489. You first ordered them to be laid upon the four inch and a half? -Yes, by order of the Engineer-in-Chief. 490. Have you any order from the Engineer~in-Chief to lay them upon the four inches and a half 1-Yes. 491. Will you produce it ?-Yes-[produeing a;nd reading a memorandum as folloms] :-: " I do not think it desirable to to allow Mr. Leggat permission to Jay the road upon the formation, and Mr. Lunt will please communicate this decision to him." That is from Mr. Higinbotham, 16 /6)76. . I 492. That is eighteen months on in the contract. There is something before that surely 1- MI'. Watson says here-" 24/12)75. The permanent way must not be laid upon the formation, but must be laid on longitudinal sleepers, standing on edge ; such sleepers not to be removed until the bottom ballast is put on, and the line is not to be used for anything, except trollies, before the ballast is put on." . 493. But he is not then the Engineer-in-Chief ?-He was resident engineer of the line. 494. He does not say they are to be 4i-inch bearings 1-He says the sleepers standing' on edge. 495. Will you put in Mr. Leggat's letter, where he shows and states his reasons for asking permission to lay the permanent way upon the earthworks before ballasting?-Here it is, if you wish to read it. 496. Read- it yourself?-[The same mas read, and is asfollo'lVs] :- To John Lunt, Esq., District Engineer, Gjppsl~nd Railway. Railway Works, Berwick, June 7,1876. Sm,-I respectfully ask that you will permit me to,dispense with the use of ballast logs under the permanenL way. and suggest for your consideratiou the following method of spreading the ballast on the line, in lieu of the present one. I propose to gradually run the road, already partially ballasted, down to the formation level, by means of b:tllast logs, which gradually diminish in thickness, and in future to lay the road on the formation itself. A.s the laying of the permanent way progresses, I propose to run the ballast trains a few chains along it, ahead of where there is any ballast, and distribute each set of ballast so run ahead, over a length equal to about double that of the train itself. This will give about 2-5ths of a cube yard of ballast per lineal yard of road. The ballast trains will not at any time need to ruu above say 15 chains along the road, while it is lying on the formation. Directly the empty train is out of the way, I would lift the road, and shovel back 3 inches or 4 inches of ballast under it. I would then discharge another 2-5th8 of a cubic yard of ballast, per lineal yard of road, llnd then lift the road a second time, say 3 inches. Then, as the works advanee, the remainder of the ballast can be put on, and the road lifted to its permanent level. • It may be mentioned, that if the permanent way be laid on the formation instead of on the ballast logs, the bearing surface will then be about lrd more than at present; in addition to which, the rails and fish plates will be much less liable to damage than now, because the lift will not be so high as is now necessary in order to get the ballast logs from under the rOad. . Should you grant the concession asked for, a great number of sleepers will at once be available for use in the permanent way, and various works connected with the platelayingand ballasting will be greatly facilitateq. I remain, Sir, Yours obediently, (Sa.) JAMES LEG GAT. 497. By the Committee.-Tbe Engineer-in-Chief or the superintending officer has power, under clause 49, to dispense with longitudinal timbers-has he, or not?-Yes. 498. What is the reply to that letter ?-I say-- (Contract No. 635.) MEMO. for the Engineer-in-Chief. Railway Department, (Gippsland line), Berwick, lOth June 1876. i herewith forward application from Mr. Leggat, asking permission to lay the permanent. way on formation in place of on longitudinal' timbers. . , . I see no ~bjection t~ t~is heing granted, bn,t would sug-gest that he 8ho~ld not be allowed to run thA engine over any P?rtion of the !me before It}S partly ballast~d; If he w~re allowed t~ do tins, we should have great difficulr.y in keeping hun from runnmg heavy trams of permanent-WHy materials over the hne, very much to the detriment of the road. I would also recommend that before any ba\l~.st is pllt on road, the permanent-way should be lifted Oll to iooO'itudinal timbers, so that it would not be strained by lifting it through the ballast. '" (Signed) JOHN LUNT, District Engineer MRs. LXGGAT. c 18 .Jullii'L'uit. That ·is, :the4 OtlDJ une·187,6-that· is'£rom''himselfito Mr;·Hi:ginbbtha:m;, aD:d '£herhMrfHi'o'i:ribotham .ll,:~i":}~~~so. declinesto,allow· them:·that: 'J', Thered)s",)also a~ letter ,.frOn1 • . , :. "..' . . .Ii,; .. :. "~ ,'l'"' .• L:. -....". _,.. L :D:i.ndenong; 1th))ec,,~ber 1875. lJ"Lunt"Esq.,DIstrlCt,Engmeer. .,. ,j,. "~i •. ,;/i ' .• 'j ,\, ...j ,-,n ,(,; • ',.1,", ':SIR,:""'Ill,or~ler .tq. me'ct your views >1B. regards' qua,lity: of 'timber:tOlbe ,used· ,in ·.bridges, ant!sleep~~~;rI\ h'ave iiheihonor 'po '\J,lf,orr;tl JYou' Fn\lot I"ha,\e c?mplf"t~(~:~rrll;l!~~me~t~;foJ;i.sam~'Joj b(,lf ~}lpplie.d: from, t~e, ;Day le~fbrq.,J}~nge,~ an,de,' e!s!,)~,herJ' As the whole of these orders >1re to be dehvered m :M:\!lpOlp:v.e,.and as I am most auxlOUS to.ex:pedIte.the worKS l1S rnucha:s possible, I bave the bonor most respectfully to reQl.lest·,that'yqu will accord me ,permi~sion to comnience' ph~telayijjg"on toe formation at the Oakleigh end, forthe:purpoSe:ofdransporting said·,matcriall!JYLtrollies. '.' ;,.' I ... ';1:' ,;.!) '.' I can assure you that in no case will the rails be used for any.other.purpose, until they arc·.raised to. the proper height on bauks for ballasting. ".. .. '.": -. "~.' .I J ., " l' ",' ,d'" " It is my intention to commence hallasting at Berwick~ and meet'the trollies at Oakleigh; . j i '.1. ,' •• , -I am, Sir,yours most ob()diently,'" , ,', Berwick, 13/12ji5.... . " , ,., ..... ' (sa.): f" ''''''NEIL'MACNEILft~ Mefuo.:fot Mr. Watson's con'sideration ..2(Sd:)1 JOlIN' r.;~~iT:D,E:";: , •.'L:" ,~, ~ .. , ";!,." ,j.,,:, :" .,",1 ,'.",' , :.l '" <,·501J. 'By '11fr. Vale:- f. sup:pos~ ·.jf-.:this:priviiegJ:'6f"tunnink;·baHa&Hl:dck,s has Men.' allowe? to othel cpntr~ct~I:S, the sleepers !tn~ the,l:ailfl being simply laig. upon the earthwor~s;,it·ha:s,beeil allowed' because- the' site· of We igravel> or· the 'riietal ,has been'vei'y ,distant, from' the' star't'i,ilg·poip.t, so to speak of the line-would th~t be ,the moti"e? -I could not say. I do not know anything ·a;bQut'anyotherlill~s.~ ":." ::. ,. j'.,.' ··;··,,E·,',·'.-··:"u.-:,,.···:-·.- ""i,;'.,.! ". I . ",', , ,,' OQ2:·Wa!3.not MaqNeil's 111.Qtiv.e_in,askipg y.ou fQf~this~privil'ege'that,the J?,earest poinffiolll whicll he' could get stone was'about 13 milesfron'i that 'point-·-,- .. , .', :;... II" ".;';. :'" .. ! . . Mr. Billing·objec;ted. . ,. ,,' , ' .' ."., ! " '-', ~The Wit1?eS8~~B;e,:sftys.,iIHlis··letter here::that ihe;,\vap~s:to l.corrllllence1bal~a:stitrg ,atfB,erwick. :;." 503~ By:#fr .. Vale:-L. Wa!3':iJ.ot,·that\Q€ca:iise!t~.e·fltearest quarry ,w~s -I ~~m:ile's b;.'.r; ~);523;I,Andrthatwl1s}th(h{sual practice oHhe 'department ::).t thc' time or,this contract1-It.is'. John Lunt, ccntilllitd, ·!W)·"··524;·A:t:the time'ofhther:coiltract now under:discussioll'·?~Yes. ; ~", . ' ,....,' ~Ist J~n. :tSBO. 525. And you know of no exception ?-No. ' . '. ~.i~ 'I', 526> You' never·,hearrd.:ofl an' exception 1-1 . never did hear of an exceptioIi,:The next section was done in the same way, and so was Millar aIidJames's:;.' The ;,,,hole of the Gippsland· • line was laid, upoIi longitudinal t~mbers. . ; '. ..: r ,'" .,;' ';' ",527. Laid,uponlongithainaJ timbers for 13 or 1'4 miles·?-For'60 miles. ~~" . . 528. All at one timw?--'-'-No...... ,. 0 , ll'l~ ."·529. A mile-at a tiill'eI?+Yes, in all probabilityu,'mile at a time.· .. :1 530. Bnt in this case there must be 13. miles at a time ?-It is not necessary. 531. How could it be avoided ?-Cart tile rails· to Berwick. - !T!wil ;,5.32. Is there· any sug'gestion in the 'contract to' cart the'rails-'to' Berwick ?,--There is not. [,:.· .. t'5331 ,Was ·there· anyi suggestion·byrMr. Leggat,! of anY'requ'est' that they might .run an epgine0.¥er. the'rlirierand"wasiit 9iI1swerednthat the: 1;lng,ine might injure;the -line ?-'l:'hey were not. allowed to run an engine over the line before it was ballasted. [) : -":'534; Pid theY'ever askl.to·run·an engine,over the line:before:it was·ballasted?-Nq. 535. The· CommitteeILw;ere·rundel~·the--ifupr:ef3sion"th'at'they'asked' y:Oll' t6?.:...... They would- have' done it.. " '. .11 .'. ,,0 . 536. Did not, they send their engine to Berwick by road.?-No, they did noLsen,d it to Berwick.': .. '- ' ..'" . :'1 0,' ' .. ~" ...... !I .•.~ ... , .' • ..,'.' • J:,':/ 53-7. Where did,theyl.send,it.to,?..,.,.TO'Dandenong ..' I.. " 1': .' ".,' .1hi,,·j·, 538::lJ'hey".did .'not·'(send·dt, to Berwick. ;,'1 ·,aInt' instructed "they' ·did ·?..L....They ,sent it ,-to Dandenong.· i '. ",r 'r, .'.:-: .r ' .. , ," " , • • ..~ 1 • t':'\( .\~ 539;' Vou . are S11:te :tthat.,·noenginel of"1the, contractor~s' was I sent on. to' -Berwick by· the ordinary road ?-Iam not sure or ,the small one;' :.. . .. , .,:, .. '.. " , llr ''1'1'; MO.::Then- onC';engiri'e';wias' sent on, and·,thaijj"engine, was' of quite . sufficient power to lay ballast for the purposes of the line ?-[No ansmehl .' ".,f: . • r ,I. f ;'. ".. " h-·'." l154b: Was';ilOt'l1 prop.osahalso made:tolyourtnat·thelcontl'act6rs\ sh0uld. ballast the'line from Berwick on towards Dandenong, and to avoid the possibility of damaging the line by the 'engine he shculd push the trucks,: by· .the: engine,·.lteeping.' -the I engine- atr·the· back of the trucks ?-Mr. Chairman, I cannot say anything: more about·, this.'l'! It was' the I Engineer-:-in-Chief: It was not I, and I ought not to be' examined, about it., ," . " .. . .,~. . .. . ·542; I want to'examirieyou about this had .n0thingto do with it. 543. You were there at the time ?-Yes. ': \ .. , 544.·You kIiow'all·the,facts?..;...ldo not 'know all,the facts. I had nothing to do with the matter at all. . " 'f;" .: '.;.,' "r ".1;" ., ,:. . o. , 545. If the Committee choose to let you go because you will not gh-e information-- I ,!" Mr; ,J3illing.-It is not'fair\ to say of the 'witness' that he will not give information. 'The witness says:he does not know;.:and the Engineer-in-Chief.ought to be examined. Mr. Vale.-As a matter of fact the witness now before the Committee knows" the' whole history· of. the contract, alldr.beyond being' 'upon lthe ground', once '.01" twice,· the-Etigineer-in-Chief knows nothing about it, beyond what he' learned Jrom,Mr.Luut's rep'ort, and, therefore, Mr. Lunt's must be the primary evidence: _. J ...... 546. By the Committee.-Ii we recollect right your letter recommended that Mr ... Leggat's request .be complied with did recommend that. .''; . j' .:, • 547. Was it in relation tOlthis very matter ?-The same thing. . , qi)l.· ·Mr;"Vale.~Butther!nvasca request previous'to l\k Leggat's by MacNeil in 187:5. The Committee.-We never heard of that before. pr~;~. "·'548: BY'Mr; Vale ..:..:.liI as'ked him, and I ask hiin' again, is .. it ·not a fact that he was repeatedlY,offered, and the proposal was that the engine should never go on to the line till it was ballasted.:· That is, that the 'engine should push the trucks with the ballast before it ?-They did that. . 549. By the Committee;-+7'Will you be kind enough to read· the letters again from Mr. Legat ?-Yes-[handing in: the· same which were read by the Chai1·man.] i)l'l, • 550. John Lunt sleepers on edge, or sleepers not to be removed until the bottom ballast is put on; and the r?ad !l1~~~:~8(}. is not to be used for anything, except trollies, before the ballast is put on." I can say nothmg , more about that. The Committee (to Mr. Vale).-It appears that Mr. Lunt recommended the granting of the requests, and was over-ruled by his superior officer. lvIr. Vale.-That is just where Mr. Lunt (I do not say intentionally) has misled the Committee. Upon the 28th December 1875, Mr. Lunt told )lIr. MacNeil" I beg to inform you that the permanent way must not be laid upon the formation, but it may be laid upon the longi tudinal sleepers standing on edge, such sleepers not to be removed until the ballast has been put on." But he says nothing about his superior officer. The Witness.-There is a letter that I have just read. 555. By Mr. Vale (to tIle lVitnes8).-If we had been allowed to ballast as we proposed from the· very quarries, having ballasted say half a mile with balks, which is the usual .custom, sh~uld not we have been able to take up those balks, and move them to the next half mIle r-Certamly you would. 556. So that if we had been allowed to ballast from the end, we should have been under the . necessity of using balks of timber for half a mile ?-So you did ballast from that end. 577. And yet we had 13 or 15 miles of those balks at one time under the regulations you enforced?-I do not think you did. 558. What is the largest or the smallest amount we had at one time ?-I could not tell you; but the permanent way was not joined when you commenced ballasting from Berwick. ~ ou must understand that they commenced laying the permanent way from both ends, from BerwIck and from Oakleigh. They carted rails to Berwick, Oakleigh, and other places, and when they got to Cranbourue road they brought up the other engine, the small engine, that they had at Berwick, ballasted the road down to Cranbourne road, aud then they got the big engine on. - 55\). By the Committee.--Did the small engine run in front of the trucks ?-Yes, it ran in front of the trucks that did the work from Berwick. 560. By Mr. Vale.-Behind the trucks when there was no metal laid ?-No, it was in front of the trucks upon balks. . 561. But when there were no balks ?-There always were balks. 562. But there were no balks; they were sleepers, I believe ?-Yes. 563. By tlte Committee.-How many of those were laid before they began to bri,llast? They began to ballast immediately they began to lay the road at Berwick, and went on ~~ . 564. How far from the starting point is it to the closing point or any intermediate point? -There might have been 9 or 10 miles, perhaps, laid of longitudinal sleepers upon edge, but those sleepers could be taken out and used again in the read if they were good. 565. But the theory llropoundecl is to ballast in short lengths as he went along, so as to save such an enormous length of sleepers on edge: is not that the request made in Mr. Lcggat's letter ?-[No answer.] Mr. Vale.-In fact we really had to put upon the ground 40,000 or 50,000 new sleepers. We had to keep a large lot of sleepers knocking about. 566. By the Committee.-Is that correct or not, Mr. Lunt?-What has become of the 41,000 of the sleepers? • 56.7. By Mr. Vale.-I say as a matter of fact we had to place in site between 45,000 and 50,000 sleepers;but that all those sleepers were not new sleepers, some were used three or four times over; but as a matter of fact, upon the 30 miles, we had to lay between 45,000 and 50,000 ? -There was nothing of the sort. 568. How many sleepers had to be laid to the- mile for longitudinnl sleepers ?-Perhaps 1,600. 569. How many miles were there. I think there were over 1,400 to each mile; actual number 1,242 ?-Very well. 570. By the Committee.-How many miles were laid ?-Ten miles about. 571. By lJIr. Vale.-I say about 30 miles were laid ?-Altogether. 572. No: I say they were in different places. I believe they came to between 9 and 13 miles. Mr. Lunt says 9 miles, and he says 1,600 to the mile, and I am instructed 1,400? -[No answer.] 573. By tlte Committee.-What. length are the sleepers ?-Eight feet six inches. 11-£1'. Vale.-I say that altogether, during the whole of the contract, we had to put in site 45,000 to 50,000 sleepers, but I admit that Sallie of them were put down four or five times; but Mr. Lunt says there were about 9 miles, and I take the number at about 14,000 .. 574. By tIle Committee.-But if the whole distance were laid there would be down only about 37,000 to 38,000, that is if the whole 30 miles were down at once . . 575 . .By.Mr. Vale.-Did you or did you not allow Mr. Leggat to do the extension towards Oaklel~h, With the consent of the officer in command as chief officer, in the very way MacNeil asked ill 1875 and was refused to be allowed, and Mr. Leggat afterwards asked ?-Yes. 576. Is it not a fact tha,t you, by the instruction of your superior officer, allowed Mr. LeO'O'at to make an extension from the Oakleigh termination of the oriO'inal contract on towards Oakl~l~'h and allowed that exte,nsion to be made in the very manner whi~h Mr. MacNeil suggested towa~d~ the ~nd of 1875-wh1Oh Mr. Leggat suggested in 1876-which you refused to MacNeil in 1875 at the Instance of Mr. Watson, and which you refused in 1876 at the instance of Mr. Watson too ?_ No, Mr. Higinbotham. . 21 577. And yet the extension was allowed to be carried out in that way by direction of your John Lunt, contin~. superior officer ?-'::It was. The reason the permission was given to .dothe Oa.kleigh extension was 21~t Jan. 188(,. that thev wanted it to be done in a hurry; there was a very short tIme to do It. 5-78. By the Committee.-W ould thos~ conces~ions have been made in ~he ~rdinary course of business if the Government had not wanted It done m a hurry ?-I do· not thmk It would. 579. Did the concession made interfere with the stability of the works in any way?-I could not say it did. 580. Do yon think the works were as satisfactory after the concession was made as they would have been had that concessi0n not been made ?-I could not say that the work was damaged m any way. 581. They were equally satisfactory?-Yes. 582. Would they not have been equally satisfactory if it had been done in the first instance ?-No. ' 583. "Where does the difference come in ?-Becanse if the work had been done in that way in the first instance you could not keep the contractors off the road unless yon stopped there day and night. ' 584. Could yon keep them off upon the' Oakleigh line ?-Yes. 585. Do you think the officers were too few to supervise under those circumstances ?-Yes. 586. If the road had been begun at Oakleigh and brought down, would it have interfered with the stability of the line?-Yes, certainly, if they had put heavy loads upon it, as they would have done. 587. Was that the objection ?-It was. 588. 'Vas there not an extraordinary amount of strictness in the supervision of that contract upon account of the difficulties the department had had with Mr. MacNeil under the previous contract ?-No; there was not. There was nothing done there but what was fair and reasonable .. If Mr. MacNeil had done anything like reasonably he would have made a lot of money out of it; he had a very good contract, but he would not d9 it reasonably. I can assure vou I had no instructions from any person in any .way to do anything harsh. " 589. Did you 'treat MacNeil and Leggat just the same as you would anyone else ?-I did just the same as I would do to-morrow if I had to do the work; and even now the work is not to be compared with the work done on other lines. 590. In what respects ?-It is not so well done. 591. You mean the contract was not satisfactorily completed ?-Lots of things are not satisfactorily done even now, for instance, the bridges. 592. Take the 'permanent way ?-The permanent way is all right. 593. The bridges ?-The bridges are not as good as they might have been. 594. Are they stone bridges ?-No; timber piles. 595. But are the piles fixed in embankments or solid ground. You say they are unsatis factory, what is the matter with them ?-They are not in line; the piles are not driven inline. 596. Bnt that does not interfere with the stability of the bridge ?-No ; as far as the. stability goes the line is as good as any of them. 597. They are not workmanlike in look-they do not range ?-Just so. 598. But there is nothing wrong with the stability of the wOJ;k ?-No; as to stability the works are just as good as any other. 599. You know there is a great difficulty in getting piles to range if they are to be askew in any way?-But none of them were to be. 599. Were they all to be straight?-Yes. . 600. By Mr. Vale.-I think you told the Committee that the object in not insisting upon longitudinal sleepers for 2 miles coming from the original contract towards Melbourne, was to save time 1-1 believe it was; I do not know for certain; but I believe that was the reason. 601. Is it not a fact that the sleepers necessary for the longitudinal arrangement could have been pnt oft' the original contract in three days 7-Yes, they could . . 602. I leave ,the fact with the Committee. We had 15,000 sleepers ready to put upon the two miles, and the three Government engineers, Messrs. Watson, Higinbotham, and Lunt, all concurred that it was not necessary to put them OIl. 'rhe 15,000 sleepers were there, and they were not taken off the line ,until long after the line was finished, and that would have taken only 2,700, certainly under 4,000, to do the whole addition ?,-There were plenty of sleepers to do it all. 603. I think the next difficulty in the contract was the question of ballast, and I believe that is dealt with on section 46 on page 19? "The ballast is to' consist of good clean gravel or quartz tailiIlgs, free from loam, clay, or earthy particles; or basalt, 01' other approved stone, broken so as to pass in any direction through a ring 2t (two and a half) inches in diameter, and all stones that will not pass through a 2t (two and a half) inch ring\must be removed from the ballast before it is laid on the formation, and it is to be laid upon tbe formation in such form and thickness, and in sueh layers as directed by the superintending officer. The ballast must be of a quality approved by the superintending officer, and none must be made use of unless he shall ha>:e "examined and approved, of it, and· the contractor must, during the whole of his time for mamtenance, &c., keep the hne boxed up to the extent shown on the drawinO's, and to the satisfaction of the superintending officer." '" , 604. That last elause means that if the earthwork sinks beyond calculation the eontractor is to make it up in ballast at the top ?-Yes. 605. And he does not get paid for it ?-He gets paid for maintenance. 22 ~.QIllJ1LulI~ 'IlJOT 't,60.6hTIl!it is(n,!.bmyt<)uestion.~!.That. meansrif.. the•. earthwOl:k:sinks downwards the' level is c Y~~:.·'t1 t_ " q. I'. • 1 "}'\... ::t -, .'~ , ~ .. ,~' . t: ~'.', • 1 F. I .\f-:,',. 630. You saw the stone got from there ?-I did. l \ ~ ;,:' ';": .... :.:1 .. ; .l/ll,~ 631. You had certain correspondence and cQn.versations.with.J.\.facNeil.as to opening.up that q(l!a:':rYJ\:-rh~re was nocorresponqence.at all about. it. : .. , 'j'.' ,".j' • ". tN, l'! .. ',:(Ht2"nW ~§\l)o,t\Abere: sQm.e';Gor.re.spOll,.d~nc~;ahout; the ,department .letting, him.lhave· some?,old ralls ?-Yes.· :: : '.: '.1:; .'. . ~ '. , f,,[Jji]O .~Q.3.-,~A..ndl tJ!ej d,epartP:l;~nt 1Vo';ll9Ino,t: let::hjm haye)them!Until he, got the lease of tlie l ground! and the lease signed, sealed), !!-)ld delivered, w,as':lll' the ·hands of the ,department f-.:.Yes:· 'r;q,' odj Ir;,/1.~4~.;I:rbt;n" ,tp~re was;'G9r,re~poJldence.i¥boutJ q.va:t:ry.,"-~..L i J ( :' ',.J t ,,~. :" 'Ii. $~, .": ~.;<,~. ", •...• '. T·V,··(... C,,: •. • :~.~ ~('~ .• ", '",,: v. ,.;{ :, 6a5~. ·U1Jt~th.~ Je!:1§e. ,W?,S gohto.- sIlOw that theythad .power to ,open the quarry ?-=Wes;, ·1i1!lfl!1.!) yill,~ iliQ~Q.:~hat'-~!1.~7v~ry.~eaJ'Jy, i:.t;lJlU,}l c.omse 9J~copstruction, of. the' .I,ine, ?-Yes:' ,~~.;:'.ioJ ;,<:oc; t,:'rfJY! (:1: V': 6;337':'JI-shpuld,like to ask:yo:u whut:the'objects .are to be.achieved in ballastiilgJa railway line ?-We require stone tlu,t will not decay. I,· , J~ f v"j i"l' 638:" ,Th 4t· i.s ,al qItality;: llQt) the object ;:I,asked the object, of. ballasting a,·railwaydine ? To w~k!;:tht;l railsl;irmaL\d rigid.,. : ' '" ~"!.'." ~ ' .. 'j ...... '., .:: . . J, ' ,.," '::J;~,)'j\ 9.$~" ~ hUIPPOS~-o.n.9'Ppj~ct, is. to spreaq,:tl),e, :bt;aring; of,·t.hqsle~pers and: the rails ·?,fIt is:...! J) P ;;".lIIJ,in 64q~.,Apo.~b9r obj{;ct. is'to'R;eep.tbe1tra,ck'fi.fEld; and yet·to givelitl3i 1ceitain amount·opplay.A -Yes. .... '. ,r ," . '. ' . , :;1;. "A3.4) '·IA;.tllj.r~ 9Pj~~t ..~s·,tQ g~ve, a:Ger.tain _amOUllt of, dra:inage,,?...,.-¥es ... '! ! .. ' Ili 11 ::;'Icifa~; ,', "!" " ,642:. W:I;mt '1&. US\lallY'.Qoilslder~d :tp!JiJe;;the"best material: for:pallast ?-Basalt bluestone~'\, .. :1 ;f,:!,,,' :;9,4~:'i)§.th[1J tht; Ip.ost.g~ne~\l;Uy{u§~dl!m_a;teriaM;-,-;.It{lis the·hes.t: i [.'·. ; .. 1" . n'i( (f'! 'iii;l'm!l ~tji !-Hi. §4~!I r1 ,s_ay.:i.s,ltha,t:,th<;. ,Iq.Qst gel:l~rall;YJ.us~.d, material,: in .the:colony 7-It is mostlyIused ,if·cit ls,to\be got. ,,,,', ),' . '.' .. ;"\ ' .. !: '!l~' ) .. ~J 0d~ :. 11 L,)" -lr: l,;" r.-L ,I •• '; ).~ 1 ~ I j"Clt v ., .. 64'5. Bfthe Co~rnittee.-1s it generally used ?-No, gravel is' generaIl;y used. Wl':.· . . 648. What wt+§:;l!.~itd..,fr9m,\W~r:r.ep.heiR:.~oJ~ordoIis,?;-;,-;Graveb 1~'!1 ",:l] 1 ••::fi .•.•1 ,:-. 23 ,,', ' 649. Was it ?...:..:... Yes;,; " , ',' 650. Was it not'quarfz ?::..:.-It was gravel., ,:"J' ' .. ,. ~" '" ' ~r:. ,! ' 651. Do not lit 'us' misunderstand. Was noV it :quartz ?:....;.:It is tailihgs:,fi'oIil £he':lriines. , 652. Quartz tailing!:;, ?.!:...!.Gravel. ' : "j " I " . ,:, .' I ' ',~ .1 " 653. ·The thing' h'ere states that the're is c;lea:ngravel, and there:isgua,rtz: tailiirgs ;"'no~ WalTenheip to'Gordons.was 'quartz'tailings, and T a~l entitled to"an'exact answer.,' Now wht1t SOFt of 'stone 'was used on :the second section of the: Gippsland; line,. the ione iTI?-me'q.i'ately. folll?wing Noonan and Leggat's ?-Stone got from Henty's quarry-good hard stone. , ' 654. Not bluestone ?~Some of it is blue enough '; it is good hard stone .. ' "., :' 655: is there aJitwentieth,part of Henty's' quar.ry basa'lt ?~No,'it is quite as good:as basalt. !n'" 656. Is ituot ai'Clay,forrriation'the bulk.', After taking out a portion that may befbasalt, is 'not nineteeil-twentieths'day,;formation, I ~o 110t say good or bad,?'--Do you m~an ~laY?i " '':;;J 657. Stone of.a clay fo:t;mati9Ii., not a rock ?...:....:Itis a,rock. 11)") • ;) ~'t ... , '658: Is it nob'), clayey·l'ock.?...;....,.Itdoes not decay,'any way.. r:, "', . 659. Does not it turn into dust does not. 660." It is not'o£'a clayey 'character ?-It is notI:" ,'" : , 661. Then if Mr:1New.berysays it is of a clayey character by analysis 'he 'is not correct It is quite as hard as 'bluestone: " , ' 'l r'" \- " :1', : ", ' 662. If Mr. Newbery says it is of a clayey character by analysis he is not correct ?-- , The C01nmittee;--!...-That'is not quite 'a fair: qnestioh.., ,: : " ,'.,':, " "'663. By Mr. Val~I~Was"not theFe' some difficulty; about 'this "quarry of Henty's, in the time of Leggat, being used ?-No difficulty at all. ')" .. 664: In"MacNeiJt's!time';?.ill.No,'110 difficulty at'aIL": ,'(.;., ' -',1 ' ;665, Was. not there.a difficulty about this quarry 'with MacNeil?...!-Mr, HiginbotHam asked him to go to Pakenham to get a few miles of ballast there, 'and: he thought' if he did he could be able to get the line open.in time. ; .. ,,; .·666.And though there was 3id. asked, is it not a fact tbat7d. was afterwards asked, unless the whole of thc ballast was taken from the quarry?-I never heard what was asked. I know :nothing about it. " 667. What sort of stone is it fl'om Gibb's quarry?-Some very good stone. ,:'[',';',". 668.nDo yon consider that;all the i'ejected material from Gibb's quarry is bad ?-Yes, I do. LI .I 669,f The ;'vlrole of it ?""::The whole of it. You might find a small lump good. ' 670. Do you consider a large proportion of it is not equal to the Pakenham quarry? ,Ninety per'cenkofit is worse than the Pakel1ham quarry. , , ,671. ,Ninety per cent. of Gibb's quarry is worse thau the Pakenham quarry ?-Yes. 672. In what respects worse ?-Because it all falls. Gibb's qnarry is a sort of round lump, \wHich; all 'falls into-dust when exposed to the weather. '.':." I ,6'13. W·hat.are·the special advantages that made Henty's quarry 90'per cent. better than Gibb's. What are the qualities in Henty's quarry at Pakenham which make it 90 per cent. better than Gibb's q'uarry?-:- Because the stuff from Gibb's qnarry all goes to dust; it is not fit for ballast at all., , Unless you pick it very ~arefully you get six loads of bad stuff to one of good. 674. Worse than has been used on other lines ?-I say nothing about other lines. ',,' 1 ,Wr5. "I'ask are you going to refuse us the experience·that makes you qualified as Inspector of Permanent Way ?-- . ';,:."', ,; Mr.lBi'llin.q 'objected~" . .: " ... 67-6 . .B,Y the C01mnittee:-You say one of these kinds of stone is 90 percent. better than the other?-Yes. . :It,,-··, ,677. Artd'·l\'Ir}¥aIe' wishes 'you to state the grounds'of that- beliefof yonrs ?-The one all decays; if you e~pose it to the weather six months you could grow potatoes in it, and the other is t'),S goad nmv1a:s'iVwas wh'eil."'it, was putLinto the line.' - , " , '. 678. B,Y Mr. Vale.-And you say Henty's quarry is good is. , 679., ,Now· I asfu,.youto produce a l~tter from the Engineer-in-Chief, dated 16th February !1876j.:from Thomas Higinbotham to Mr~l;MacNeil or Mr. Leggat'?-Thestone upon the Oakleigh ·Hne:'is·from·Mr. Heil.ty's"quarry~ :and anyone cau see it. " , ' . 680. By the Committee.-Is that of a friable character P:-They can pack it up.-'-[The letter mas handed to the witness, and read as foUomsJ:-' ' SIR, Engineer-in-Chief's Office, Railway Department" Melbourne, 16th February 1876, Hef<:rring to your letter of the 25th January last, on the subject of the quality and price of the ballast which you propose to supply on JOur, contract No, 635, Gippsland Railway, I h:,ve,the honor t~ say that I insp~cted yestcrday the 'sample heap 01 ballast which 'you'prepared 'at·'my'request· as a speclmen'of the quality of ballast which you can supply .fromthe;ql1arry'which·has,heen~opened in Mr, Gibbs' land r'nnd 'I agree to accept ballast of this quality, under clause 69 of your. contract" at ,the rate, of, s.!x,shillings and fivepence (68. 5d.) pel' lineal. yard of single line of railway, instead of eight shillings (Ss.) which is your contract price for baU~st as specified. . ' " When ballast of the qualil.y'shown in the sample heap is used in sidings or for bridges or culverts, the price will be five,shillings and eightpence (5s, Sd:) per cubic yard; instead 0'1' Iseven shillings (78:) the pricc inlthe 'contract. The sample of ballast which you pointed out to me on Mr. Henty's land yesterday is so mixed that I decline to take it at.any price" I desire to tak" this oppor.tunity to call your attention to the importance of at once proceeding vigorouslv 'with 'tHe',works of your coiitradt, as if you 'neglect to :do)so~ it will be'cbme m'y'dut'y to advise the Honorable the Minister of ,Rsilwa.Y:~!1tq act,on',the,powers'gi "eu' by'olause 79 of the conditiolls;and :terOlinate it. : ' ' " ". I have the honor, &c., 'f,)(, ,;\ ) .. ,1IJ ;~'i~;'; I'~; ,"'. 1,' "p,', '~lWi (Signed)' T. HIGINBOTHAM, Mr. Neil MacNeil, Eugineer-in-Chief. Y" I ,Dandenong. , 681. By Mr. Vale.-Were you with Mr. Higinbotham at,the inspection?-;Yes.l' 24 John Lnnt, 682. You notice his statement that "The sample of ballast which you pointed out to me on «mtinl!ed, net .Tan: 1880. Mr. Henty's land yesterday is so mixed that I decline to take it" ?-Yes. - 683. Mr. Higinbotham declines both quarries ?-Perhaps I may be allowed to explain about this-Mr. Higinbotham asked Mr. MacNeil to go ~nd try to get stone at Henty's quarries; he went ~h~re and opened a few holes, and what stone h? got he planted, und got a lot of rubbish and pnt It In a heap, all the stone he got he went and hid among the ferns so that we could not see it. 683.* By the C01nrnittee.-Mr. MacNeil did ?-Mr. MacNeil did, and that was the reason Mr. Higinbotham objected to take it. 684. By Mr. Vale.-That is rather a good reason, I admit ?-It is nevertheless true. 685. Then it does not show much....:...the stone must have been taken out of some hole?-Yes. 686. And there were two engineers present and they might have gone down the hole and seen it, and Mr. Lunt was one of them ?-The stone was taken out of the hole and the hole was covered over with clay, and he said there was no stone in the quarry. 687. We are told there was no clay in the neighbourhood ?':"'-Earth, or whatever it was that was upon the top. 688. I suppose you concurred in the recommendation 'that the stone from Gibb's quarry should be taken at a 20 per cent. reductio!! ? He. said he would take the stone at 20 per cent. reduction, but if Mr. MacNeil had produced the best stone there was there, he would have been glad to take it at full price. 689. You said something about potatoes growing ?-Yes ; from Gibb's quarry. 690. From that I understand that the heaps were covered rapidly with vegetation 1-1 did not say that. 69L Joking apart, about potatoes growing, is. it not a fact that there is a large mass of stone at Gibb's quarry after an exposure of three or foUl' years in absolutely good condition? I have not been in Gibb's quarry since I left it. 692. When was that ?-About 1876, I could uot say for certainty. 693. Do you mean to say that the stone from that. quarry was rotten then ?-Yes, any amount of it. 694. Then if it is not rotten now you cannot have observed it correctly?-There is good stone in Gibb's quarry as well as bad. 695. I speak of the refuse heaps-you say that the stone after being six or nine months out of the quarry would gro,,, potatoes-now I ask is the stone rotten ?-The outside is rotten~ 696. How deep ?-Six or 9 inches. 697 .. How often were you at Gibb's quarry after the rejection of it? - I was there a number of times; I told MacNeil many times, that a large percentage would not do for ballast, and still he persisted in going on with the quarry. 698. By tIle Comrnittee.-What specimen did you see of the quarry?-The shaft that they sank first they got very good stone out of, bnt when they opened it out it turned out to be nothing but a ball. . 699. But the top is 'sometimes very bad ?-Yes, but they made a very large hole. 700. What depth ?-About 14 feet. If they had gone down deeper they would have got very good stone. 701. The stone from the bottom of the 14 feet, would that have been good enough for ballast ?-Portions of it only. 702. Was it a freestone or a whinstone ?-~t is a sort of basalt stone broken up. In fact· Mr. Leggat himself said that no one but a fool like Mr. MacNeil would have thought of going to open a quarry there. . 703. By J£r. Vale.-Was there anyone else present beside you when he said that ?-He said it to many people. . . 704. Let us know the names of some of those people?-I believe he said it to Mr. Inspector Scott. 705. You say H many people." Who are the many peopleJ-I cannot tell you who they are. On the 18th of J annary ] 876 the Engineer-in-Cliief went down the line to Dandenong, and examined the bridges and quarry at Ber,vick, and condemned the stone generally in Mr. MacNeil's presence; and for a long time after that they worked in the quarry. 706. Whom was that forwarded to ?-Forwarded to no one. :Mr. Vale objected to this memorandum being put in, since this condemnation was not in the presence of Mr. MacNeiL The Witnc88.-Yes, Mr. MacNeil was there. 707. By Mr. Vale.-You say that long after the 18th M::wNeil went on with this quarry. Then what are the facts. On the 5th of January 1876 (I ask the department to produce this lettej·), Mr. MacNeil writes to Mr. Lunt, (I Sir,-Wou~d you be kind enough. to meet me to-d~y, ~t 12 o'clock in Mr. Henty's paddock at Pakenham, to mspect the shafts whICh I have sunk III hIS paddoek f~r the purpose of testing the suitability of the reef supposed to be there for ballasting line?" and yet we did not get any certain sound upon that question till the 16th February 1876, when we get Mr. Higinbotham's report. We are delayed six weeks Up~)l1 this qnesti?n. I wish to ask Mr. Lunt if it is correct that, upon the 15th of February 1876, he, m company WIth the Eno-ineer-in-Chief, Mr. Higinbotham, visited Gibb's qJlarry, inspected the stone there, and offered to take certain portions of it at about 20 per cent. reduction, at 8s. per yard and 7s. per ·yard ?-'-Yes. . 708. Can you now tell us the time at which it was suggested you should go to the quarry? -I never suggested a qrnmy yet. 25 709. You suggested Henty's (-I never did. Jobl!Lunt, 710. Can you tell us when you first inspected Wilson's (-When I first went to Berwick Jlsr.t~~~80. 1 went there. 711. When was that (-January 1875. 712. Who took you there ?-I went myself. 7J 3. What forr-To look at the quarry .. 714. For what purpose ?-Curiosity. 715. Is that a fair answer. Then the engineer upon the. railway line went to the quarry for curiosity. Did not you go to see if Wilson's quarry was suitable for ballast upon the line ?- I did. . 716. After that when did you go, so to speak, distinctly instructed in your official capacity to inspect Wilson's quarry ?-Upon my word 1 could not tell you that. 717. Will YQU look at your diary, please ?-Upon my word I could not tell- [riferring to the book]. 718. By Mr. Billing.-What book is that ?-A day book kept in my office at Berwick 719. By Mr. Vale.-Is that written up every day ?-It is written up every day. 720. Is your diary here; you had a diary here the other day. I should like to know when you went professionally ?-I am quite satisfied you will get no information about that from this diary. , 721. Perhaps you have another diary that will tell us ?-No, I have no other diary. 722. You cannot tell us when you first went to Wilson's quarry ?-I cannot really. 723. Do you know when it was first opened ?-Early in 1876. 724. Can yon find us the first pay-sheet for ballast at Wilson's quarry?-Yes. 725. Of course you mean by "opened" that it was first opened for Government railway purposes. I suppose it was opened when you first went to see it ?-It was a very large quarry when 1 first saw it. 726. It had been opened twenty years r-I believe so. . 727. When you went in 1875 to see it for curiosity or professional purposes,it had been opened some time ; did it look decayed ?-The top of it was decayed. 728. A few feet from the grass ?-Yes. . 729. But the bulk of it was good average stone for road making or ballast ?-Yes it was. 730. You went then into a large open quarry that' had been in existence more or less, .worked for twenty years, and the stone showed a good, firm, upstanding face ?-Yes, a fair face. 731. And you approved of it ?-I did not. 1 said the stone would do if it turned out according to sample; a sample was taken. 732. What time was that ?-I am sure 1 do not know. 733. That was not the time you went for curiosity ?-No, Mr. Higinbotham was with me. 734. By the Committee.-Did you go at the request of the contractors to inspect the stone r -I did once.. , 735. We mean at this time ? ~ I went with Mr. Irons, once the manager for Mr. Leggat. 736. We suppose the contractors wanted to know whether the department would accept the stone as ballast ?-Yes, and they were told it would. 737. By whom ?-By Mr. Higinbotham. . 738. Why did not you accept the stone?-W edid. The line is ballasted with it. 739. By Mr. Vale.-No, this is the bad quarry ?-No, Wilson's. 740. I asked the witness when he went into this quarry that had been opened twenty years, in 1875, whether he did not see good, upstanding stone in the face of the quarry, and he said, yes, ~xcept a few feet that came down from the grass. That was this one that had good serviceable stone for metal or ballast. Now I want him to tell me how he worked the stone. How did you ~nsist upon tbis being ~u~ into ~arts to be car~ied t.o the crushing machine ?--:-If it was large lumps lt was lIfted by .hand, If It WIlS m small partlcles It was filled by forks, whICh was the usual way to take all the ballast for the roads taken out of that quarry. 741. You say the usual way at that quarry?-Yes, it was. 742. Was any ballast in the history of the railway construction ever taken with forks to go to the crushing machines ?-I cannot answer that question. 743. Did you ever hear of such a ease (-I never did. They ·might have taken it with shovels, but it would have taken all the dirt. '. 744. And you introduced the novel and costly method of forks (-It was introduced previously. ' 745. And yet the contractor continually objected to the fork business (-I never heard him object to it in my life. The large lumps were put into drays, and taken down to the crushing machine and crushed, but the reason tlmt all this stuff was mixed up tocrether was this.-f The witness explained his meaning 0;; a diagram.]-They sank down till they got to the clay wor'king the face, and from the clay to the top was perhaps 50 feet. They put in a drive, and then turned the drive at right angles, and put a large cllarge of powder in, and used to get perhaps 2,000 yards of stuff at one shot, and that brought eu.rth and everything. 746. And you objected to shovels Leing used, because that would lift the earth as well as the stone (-Yes. 747. The reason was that the stone, after the blast took place, was mixed with clay or earth, and you wanted to avoid the clay .or earth, and so used forks ?-Yes. 748. Is it not a fact that the earth lies there all round the quarry now to-day ?-Yes, a little does, but it was not all taken away. . MRS LEGGA.l'. D 26 .;, ("' ,.7~9. TI~~ S~1.l·th was I,tq~ual!;y st!i~'ped, i)tr and -'tak~ln:tWay, ahel ~ie{there-' to' this:~hty ?-It was'llotaNtaKcn"nway. I, Il.,"--"· "",:,.".. , , ..1 .. ,: ..... : ..." ,;. '.. • ... ,., ,: .1.·.j,:,. . 760. By th? Committee.-Was the rock stripped of this top covel'i;ng before they;:12e€faii1fu blast ?-Yes, but It was not all taken off. . , ". . 761. What depth was stripped from thels'u't·f~i;ce'?!.:LIt ya~ied~'" Anq 'even"then,·,v'h!3n they . used to take perhaps 12 or 14 feet of the stripping li.1fe'ltUat, they put· in a shot,.and fetened off the stuff from the back. . , .. , '; \ ".; ',,', " ..752. ·StiW1they);took ·otr·.all' tihe' debris'\it'the top ?L··Only.'a cel'tain' distance froril; the face perli':.i:ps ~:21 or".15 feet.: If you 'pu't'a; sliaft'ih' l1'5'fe'et 'J6u'would· bring allot down' 'from the',iJ)aCk:1,;:I . 7;)3, pld the sha~t go by the space they cleared ?__, .. '. 1 ". :;}l" -754: By 1Ifr: Vale!.!ll.:.F:~6uld::p·oii1t·· olit" tHat' it·· is"impos'sil:He: 'because Ithe'stuff~ is now .sta?-~~ng in Im'~'e heaps at thif·ba'Cli.'of'the qu~~+y, ~nd a. large quanti.ey' of,'thaf i~: now, being!cartea for. meta!" for roads. "Now; Mr. Lnnt,',does,the speClficatlOnsay that none' of th6',storre shalL be. less than 2! mches ?- It does not. ; . \ J tl7'55: .An'd· itt do.es; nbt :sat th~t' it\'shi111'be,]ess than ~ half?..:w:N·c);"b'ut'# does'iiot say'it shall be clay. '.. '. .; ,; f; I'·, , .' '"--: \':!l) 'f:I.:~ I • t ::"_, .. ~.' _ l·~-" ... :'; • . , ~ •. c.". 756. It is not usual to sift'o'i'avel is;it'?.:..-.No. ,,' !" .,.. ..', ' ':1:,;" . . b' . . 757.' Yon take' gravel'us·it comes out from' thC"qual'i'y ?-'-.!Yes~' .,' .... - "'" ... i.·. "t! 758. And.a large quantity of it is,sma:ll and,dusty:?-Yes, .. .T~-.if; 759. Specially 'the i'i'onston-e' gravel'?...!lyes.' . J !. 'I ',~; •• 'l,' . ~"."\ ;" ".' -, '" .'.. ':. \ 150.AIid 'iou 'rather:co~siclel' ;the sn)all.~tllffistgood 1fo£' bindihg?..L.:Y'e's:;- "'.'- .~v,' 7tH. There is clay use,doli.'sq~e,!ofllIH~ ;Gqy(Wnniel.1't I ines?L!JI 'am ;no~':idv'a.re"Of it:~'· . 762, IS·there rifot'Clay in' the'?ohraii(rgrrivel~?LYes;Tthelieve thei'E)'is:' '" .. i,';'" 1. :'763/ A, cotiSide'Yabl'etiq'tlantity-?-'-T-couldn9,t sn,yl'it'consideru:hle')qnaritity:"'} '.' ;'., -:'iL,!lP 764~ !IS lhel:e iio'clayt11)on :soiu'e' of' tlie"Giptlslana"line ia-t1:Sale ?:.lI-N o .. "'4'1 ". ,~ ~,~' ,If ..:'.j 765. Sand?-Yes, sand. . . . . " ',f . , ' . ., J" 766 .. Were ther.e any' exception'aJJi'.lo\v Ip'ri'cesCl'tip'on :.tj}'j:S; 'con'tract 'for 'ballast ?-7P do not know' anything a.t all aboilt the prices.", , . ji' ~ .. "l . .: 767. By tlte Committee.:.:..i.This stuff "f'as taken dowritoitl1ecrusli'ing machine'?...... ,.,Y!'ls:"-·~·:·' 768., What was done with it ,there ?-It was crushed' and 'put into waggons. , .(,,;,/ 76'9:'Cnlslieu irit6 wnat'sizes ?-Two'ana'a hitlf'-'i.nch'nietal!: ); ,), ,.1, ,h., .\.• ' , ,";"! "770.:' Are"yo'ri~not~,,'are' that the bluestone going 'through that process bp~ns,ltii)' all the seains ?.....LNo ,'.. , , .' " ,. , :,' ' .. ,' , jJ~ .,". '.' .. ,{ ,",' '771. 'Are' not yi:;{taware' that that stone IS verhiruch inUre:'liable to open up after it has crone through the crushing process than if it is Qroken by IL han<;l 'ha;mmer ?-I did not know that; but it is crnshed in flakes more thari!'iii' clibes.' I It,o'is"'uot"so-good for'roud"metal, but it is not worse for railways. !l'" " . ,'I "', .,,' .;: .. ',' ,J.. ' , .' ".'. 772. 'A's,'a 'j:)l'incFple' al'st('nle':o'p~n~i"up 'inore tiJter:;it:'nas"gone through the crushing'process, and opens up readier, than after being broken by hand, because the cohesive,particles of the stone-s are 'all q,estroyed.; Is inia,chiri;e-broken nletal'il)r~ferable'forn1il way ballast' to hand,-broken'metal ? ..:c...ltis prefeia15le: ,.'] ,! ,:. ',' .. ' .II},"'. n.; .:";'''' :"f ...: ,'I, .., .".. , ; • 773. You did not object to its being"very ril'u:ch sfualler·than.'2!'in'ches ?-No. -' " "'. I.d 774 . .I suppose 75 per .cent. went thr,ol1gh thfring ;' would you' 'dbject to that ?~ We never objected to any' ':inetaltliiit \,;e'n't thl'Ollgh tli'ose'machines> . .• . ; , .'.. t . . 775. You never rejected ~nyi metal-for/beh~g·.'t(),6 small ?:....;...No: .. '. ' . .776. By Mr; .. ' Vale.-.:....Did rrlot'ijou'!coillp~l therrt"to u'se forks to load the carts ?-I did, .' '777. ,Did not'yoll,'l'ii:the ri'robess of'coInI>elling 'them' to use· forks with'prongs aboublll'inch ffn:~ a quarter wide, ,reject \1n 'enol;mous:quantitY"of stone broken.in the process of blasting?-..:!I 'di.d not say anything about the 'size of the pi'ongs ... ' . . '. ,,, .' ,.. " :' , . .' i78. By this1.proces·s ,Of: fork se'Hietion I' may ask y{)U: whether you ,.did not reject at 'least 5,OeO jai;ds ?-I miglit' explain' tnat"t:llose' forlts 'tllat"\vere 'used-'-I "asked thenttb loadtliis storre with forks, I did not say au):thing al)oi'it how \Y,idrapart the1prongswere to be-;-were-.'the identical forks us~d before u~rfor gettmgs[ol1e Ciui' Of ,the sa'm'e' quarrj 'for :road·iiietal.'. '. " " . '... 779. By ihe·'Committee!.:.....2Are'tliey·tlle'ordinary' sluicing fork's?-'-'"". . "".' 1'. • " 780. By Mr. Vale.-I qelieve theyai;fj:'}fbw'can you; 1\'11'. Lunt, give us.orie instatice of fork'sllavihg; been' t'tsea 'iD"coIlljection: \vith'qtiai'tz'tailing's, gravel, or'iron'stone,or anything- e~~e, o~ are you usit1O' it now in the selection of material for your permitn'ent'·,,·aY:?L--Tt is not'b"ing':n:sed~ but'if wewc~e to'get'birllast fl;om~thae'qu'arry\velshould)use forksignin:" . ...: " ~~. 'f' : • 'w 781. As inspector of permanent way have you issued inst.ruct.ions for forks to be'usl:\dC'at allY time"in' alii pHice·?~lli:),ve··i:Jdt,oeca'qse'l know· of'no' stone lil«~:if any' where' in' the coluny. r ';' .. "782: Tlii)UgNyolh.\·sed'fo~ks· thr~,e\)0(f6ur )·earsag '"L, 791. Verygoo~ ballast ?,:--rIt is not bad ,ballast. • . j'/''-'';:: ' .. '.. : " \. ,;.' ", Jc~~/;;~t, 1 '; .:.. 792 .. Were ,they· not allow~dto take, the stu:£f<"wlth:s40Ylels,lp-:!loadlllg?-l haye Il9.t ~4e( ~1~.~t,J¥,.,~·a·~~.~ slightest idea. ';"'.. . . I 'f:"'. ,". : ;:,. 793. Did not your: superior. officer duect yo~' to order lor,ks to. q~ I~sed, III thafi cas~..?-:~.o ;) I believe they used forks of their own accord. " 794. Have you any idea of the number of -yards of mll:t,en~l excayated, so,to, speak, t? spOlI out'of, Gibbs's quarry, aftel!. the'opening of your \1Pprov~d tqal. sh~ft ~-;;'-:-~ ,h~ve"n9t~h~ s~Jghtest idea. 795. Would you be surprised if there were 10,000 or 12,000 ya~d~?-I should, n~t. J?~: surprised ·if there' were 20,0.00 yards. " .' " , 'I . .'. , : . \ , ',,- ;-796. Did you take any stone for,the,purposes of the hne:ou,to£,Glbbss quarry?-:-y~s. ~'~I ' ~, , 797. H9w:much ?~AboJlt J,5S2,.yar.Q.s: " l. ,J. " :~, ' .. ',.. . 79S. And that is all you took ?-Yes. , " . ; , " : ,. 799. Have, you any idea" roughly, -:wh~,t .. an).o:tU1t'lof J;I}oney ;MaqN,eiJ must have ~pent i~; opening :up the 'quarry and .laying down ,the,tramway,;:a'n~d,,}J).lildtng .• the'~9nlship-g J)lant?-J,.dol}:t. know. He must have spent a 'lot of money., ,I ,',.l·,. :.' , ", " ' ""; SOO. How much £2,000 01; £3,000 ?-He did it in opposition to everyone. SOL Will you give us your oppositiol1.in, ,yr:iting'?~I l,lave I;Iot got it in writi)1g. (j'; , ; S02. Will. you.give us any case in :w:ritingi·wher~ y_Ot1 objected to,;the quarry till the work was done ?-I told him so twenty times. ':'" ~' S03. By the 'Committee.~You were instruct~,cj.iy,el:lt~r,daYJtq cO,me ,t9-qay.prepar,ed tQ give all these dates from your 'diary ?-I will try and hunt it up to-night in my diary: ' n', • S04.When :wer,e ; those ,notices ,given. of all. ~he "alJ~gatio~~ tha,t are made. Surely the engineer can refer to his. diary 're~dily eI;longh,-;:tndTpo~nt to; the p,atesypon Whi9h h,e vis~ted,?--:T.-;-:- , .J' 805.- 'By 1l£r;, Billing.-Wlth regard to ,~h.o~!l ~hffer!~qt., compJ?!lllt,l:l, p,re .tltere.entnes :lllY,Q),tl') diary, or were' they given .verbally about the quarry,:?~T.4,~YJ w.~r,e, an .verq,aL , , . S06. Do you think there are any entries in the :dial'Y ?,"'T'There are some about it, but. I wiH look.inthediaryandfindoutthedates.. ,: ",: "" . : " S07. By the Committee.-We presume that in visiting any place professipualy :th~ first thing you do on getting back would be to, record il1 YOQI,' n.ote llOok the :visit ?-;-Yes. SOS. And the same with ,regard tp; allY cp-otige,-tl;19ugh j.,t ":'Q~lq., be,. op.ly, verbally given, you would record it in your note book ?-Yes.· ,,' ,'-- ,; ," 'r'" ',}.. ' The witness withdrew. Adjourned to to-morrow at eleven 0' clod. '.:..! I ,., , l THURSDAY, 22ND JAN1!A~r lSS0 .. " -Members. present .- , ..... •• 'J '. MR. NIMMO, in the Chair; .. , 'Mr. Bell, I Mr. Fincham. ¥r. Dixon, John Lunt, further examined. .', John 211nd Jan.Lon'. 1880 •. S09. By the Committee.-In reg~rd to.clause,62 ~~·de.sire some,information. In your stat~ ment you inform the Committee. that the sleepers w~re qrought ,and stapked, .and that you verbally condemned them several times, and they were not taken away {-No, theY"were IlOt taken away. S10. Had the contractor a foreman over the works there ?-Sometimes they had, and sonie~ times they had not. :', Sll. You see in clause 62, as this improper material is brought forward-Ii The EnD"ineer in-chief niay require the dismissal, ~ithin twenty-fourhoUl's, by the contractor o.f any. resp~nsible agent, overseer, foreman, workman, or other person employed by him on the works contracted for; and in the event of the contractor refusing or neglecting to comply with such requisition all further payments on account of the work may be stopped" ?-=-Unfortunatelv we could not o~der the sleepers off the line though they were condemned-for this reason, all the culverts were built o~ inferior sleepers, according to contract, condemned sleepers. " S12 .. In the matter of fencing, a lot of fencing was allowed to be put up, and then taken down again, where they could require the dismissal of the overseer or foreman, and the question is why was this work allowed to go on at all; that is what we want to satisfy our minds about?~ This fencing was mostly let by piecework to men who left; there was no one between the men who erected it and the· contractor; if we complained to the man, he told us distinctly that we had nothing to do with the matter.. '. , ' . . S13: But I find a clause in the conditions prohibiting the sub-letting of the work ,or any portIOn of It ?-It was done. , Mr. Billing.-,-The Engineer-in-Chief may require, according to that cJause, but not Mr. Lunt as superintending officer. $14.- By the. Committee.-Is it notto lie :supposed that Mr. Lunt would communicate wit.h the Engineer-in-Chief if he, saw improper work being done? . , Mr. Lunt.-Yes, I did; where are the letters about the fencing? . " 28 'JolmLunt. 815. The Committee.-The question is, how is it that the work was allowed to go on in the 22:~'::::'n~~88o.: face of the very wise provision that the foreman superintending the execution of this improper work could have been dismissed at once; all this trouble might have been saved if that had been done. As for taking l'efuge behind the subterfuge that Mr. Lunt could not do it because it was a sub-contract-suh... letting is prohibited? Mr. Lunt.-It was'done in opposition to me altogether. 816. Just explain that to the Committee, if you please ?-If I went along the line, and saw a man or men putting up fencing, they told me I had nothing whatever to do with it ; Mr. MacNeil paid them their wages. 817. That statement is based upon a false hypothesis. The hypothesis is this-that you were supposed to truckle to this idea that the men had a right to take this by a sub-cont.ract, which you must have known, of your own personal knowledge, could not be done; that the man had no right to sublet the work. The moment you knew the work was sublet, it was your impenitive duty to report that to the Engineer-in-Chief, and IU1ve that work put a stop to ?-On the 1st of October 1875 Mr. MacNeil called about 5 p.m., about fencing that was condemned. He promised to take down and re-erect the whole of the fence to my satisfaction within six weeks from date. 818.' B.y JJlr. Vale ...... :....That was not a notice ?-N0, that was not a notice. 819. By the Committee.-How much f~ncing was up at that time ?-There could not be very much at that time. . 820. How much, 10 chains or 20 chains, or how much ?-Therc might be half. a mile of fence up at that time. . . 821, That is 40 chains. Surely you cannot expect the Committee for a mOlllent to believe that you could stand and look at 40 chains of fencing being erected without taking nolice that it was improper.. You gave notice at the time, it seems, half a mile was erected ?-Yes. 822. That was not the proper time to give notice. The proper time was when he put up . his first panel. When he put up his ranging posts you could have said; "That is not proper material." Will you produce proof now of the first noticc that was given. Refer to your journal? -That is the first. . 823. That is not a notice ?-No,. it is only a memo .. 824. What kind of fencing was this ?-It was posts and two rails. 825. Were the posts mortised?-They were. 826. Were the rails tenoned?-Yes. 827. Did they nick, or'were they just put in the proper tenons ?-Sideways: 828. Then you must have seen this work being executed (.....:....1 did. 829. Did you object to the fencing on account of the improper material ?-I did the very first time I saw it. 830. Why did you object to their doing all this work upon it ?-They would do it; the posts were not, rejected. 831. Did you communicate with the Engineer-in-Chief?-I do not think I did. 832. Was it not, however, equally 'in your power to stop the contractor notwithstanding whatever representations he made, because he did represent the contractor, could you have not put a man there to stop the work ?-Here is the letter I wrote to MacNeil, 13th November 1875- " In reply to your letter' of the 13th instant asking' where there is any condemned timber, &c., on the line, I beg to state that there 18 a number of fencing rails marked at various parts of the line, when you have removed those I will inform Mr. 'Vatson." 833. But would it not simplify the matter if' you could, by reference to your books, prove the date on which the first notice was given ?-I could not. . 834. But if yon make a complaint, eit.her of the quality, of the material, or the way the work was being executed, would you not most likely take a note of it, and the date,? -I do not see anything about it. . 835. Is it not customary. to do so in your.duti.es ?-Yes, it is. . 836. And having discovered anything wrong in the contract, you would note in your book the precise nature of the complaint you were.making?-Yes. 837. Did they rest 011 templates-did the struts rest ilpon them?-No. . 838. vVere they sunk in the ground merely ?-Yes. There is a memo. from Inspector Scott . to me on the 2nd September 1875.c... MEMO. for. Mr. Lunt. Railway Department, 2nd September 1875. I beg to stat·e when looking over the fencing at 8-mile cbaiuage, Mr. MacNeil's SOil told me they would not alter the fencing, that they ~ould makc it a present to the department, and lot it staud until the Chief's return, and then he would soon settle it for them. (Signed) WILLIAM SCOTT, . Inspector. 839. By Mr. Vale.-I should like to have Mr. MacNeil's letter where he denies that abso lutely it is immediately following- that ?-On the 4th of September 1877 I went and marked the fence at Dandenong that was ,bad..· . . 840. By the Committee.-Aft~r It was up?-:--Yes, after It was up .. The. lllspector told them previous to this that they were erectIng bad fencll1g, and I went there WIth hIll and marked the fence that was bad. 841. Does' the . inspector keep the notice he serves upon the contraetor, that is, the man (the foreman) upon the ground ?-He never does serve any notices; it is all verbal. . 842. Did you notify that to the contractor ?-Yes.. 29 843. Upon that date ?-Yes.. . JOhll Lunl. <: William Walker, examined. Wflllam Walker. 847. By the CO'Jllmittee.-What are you saw-yer. 22nd Jan. 1880. 848. What mill are you in ?-I am working for Mr, Quiggin at present, upon the Goulbnrn Valley River Railway, or in connection with it. 849. By ~'tIr. Vale.-You had some connection with the section of the Gippsland line which Mr. MacNeil and Mr. Leggat had the contract for 850. Will you tell us what you were doing there?-Yes. I erected a mill, and cut a certain amount of sleepers, I think about 7,000. 851. Where did you erect the mill Mr. Nash's. . 852. Where is that situated ?-About seven or eight miles from MacNeil's railway. 853. South or north of the railway ?-l think north of the railway. 854. In selecting the timber what course did you take ?-I took the best of the timber that was there. I was shown the timber by Mr. Nash, and I was shown a certain saw-pit where the department had some sleepers' cut; and I was led to believe, aud in fact I knew it, that the department approved of it. 855. By 11[1'. Billing.-Do you know that of your own. knowledge?-Yes. . 856. By ~'tlr. Vale.-You say the department, what do you mean by the department?-The Railway Department. 857. How do you know that the sleepel's you saw had been or were afterwards approved by the Railway Department?-I was informed when I left Berwick to go up there, that the department approved of the timber, and to go up and look after it. 858. Informed by whom ?-By Mr. Leggat. 859. Will you describe the method that you took in cutting the sleepers ?-- jvlr. Billing objected that this was not evidence. . 860. By jvlr. Vale.-In what method did you proceed to cut the sleepers, as to the timber you selected in the first instance ?-I selected the best timber in the forest about. 861. Now I ask what precautions did you take as to selecting good timber out of the trees you cut ?-I took every precaution. 862. Mention the precautions?-We cut down the best timber that was there. 863. The best trees ?-Yes. We cut the sleepers, and cut them full size. 864. What do you mean by "full size" ?-It is understood in cutting for the Government that the stuff sliall stand a quarter of an inch over, to allow for shrinkage. . . 865. All ways ?-All ways. I do not say it is carried out in every sleeper, but as near as pOSSIble. . 866. Do you remember the size given to you as the size to which you were to cut the sleepers ?-Yes. 867. State whether their size is with the addition of a quarter of an inch for shrinkage, or with it'?-They are supposed to: be 9 inches by four and a half, but we cut them a. quarter to allow.for shrinage-that is, four and three quarters by nine and a quarter. 868. And the length ?-Eight feet six, aud we allow 3 inches over, and sometimes four over. 869. In the length ?-Yes. 870. What trees did you mainly cut from ?-Stringy bark and messmate. 871. Was the timber of that country good or bad ?-Good 6f the description. "872. First classin stringy bark iJind first class in messmate?-Yes. . 873. Were many of those sleepers rejected ?-Yes, there was a goo~ many of them rejected. 30 WilIlam.. Walker, 874. For what causes ?-Well, for splitting. ,:" ...... 22nd.JandlBBO.eonllnued. ,"'':-,ill,)!', . " 8'"'5I'.f.' B' :1J,'i.ur.. 1.,(: •.' B L,mg:~'Il' . R'eJec.e t diMy!W 1, h oml.'--'.lDy? D .. t h e'm'way, R :1' D' ·epartment. :if: /:,::,.78761 By..the a01nmittee."~BY: the Government officers ?-Yes, the i,nspector. 877. By Mr. Vale.-Rejected at what period of the .deli'Very ?--'-c.Upon the delivery up.oD' the rail way . . il' J1 ':8,78"'lYoll'mean when delivered from your carts ?-Yes, from the waggons. '.,' :i,~ o:.l"i,r:879''!"For,:w.hat·:reasonS';. what'.re.asons ~vere· given ?-Splitting was one of the reasons., , .. : 880. By.Mr. Billing.-Are you'detailing a conversation that took place with yourself, or &ll:i~g~ ,tgat,w:ere:.tol<;l. yoU!·.byJ\~r.,Leggat;:or anything' else·?-;-I ~now this of myself. I was up, and, do·wn the line.' ,,' .'. , ..] . . .. , , .' .: \: ':i _" .' . <:a:.:,r"- 881.~}rrom w~om were'You aware of it ?~lsa~ them all.along the line. '. '''-' ·,,(li.,,;88~:.; Whatr}':ere· the, people that, told·,.You.?-::-Lcould. name a gentleman; Mr. Styles was·. one, and I think Mr. Kerr is another.' 883. By t~q Committee.-:-,He·was present :on some of those occasions?-Yes, I was npon th~..rl}jl~vay ~yery ~ay, ~brick; .and forward, from the mills . .. ' '884.' 'Were you'present at thel'ejection?-Yes, I saw them with the paint pot and brush going along the line pa,inting them. It was Mr. Styles, who painted the sleepers. ;':'r'/' 885. By lJ.fI~.:Vale;-Do you know the,sleepers upon the' following section of the Gippsland line}o'this:?....::..;:Nb ;. 'I ha:v'e seen them, but t have not minutely .inspected· them. . a,~!.~: .,- -886:: Previously to takiriKchm;ge ofthe' sawn'lill,wllat were you doing in Melbourne ?-I was aeliverin'gtimber'from Spencer str~et; St. Kilda wharf, and .Mordialloc. '. '. ~:. . ' 887. Timber for the purposes of this railway?-Yes: 'J.' c 888'.' You were selecting' timber ?"-Yes'; the' timber that came down from ·the mills, I passed it. _. . .' '. :.. ' " " . ..~. 889. Did you reject any of it ?-,-Yes . .i. ::'''.:.,,;' 890. You passed it for the contractors, and you were authoriz:ed to reject a~ly that did not .:_.;~;Ir 'ilb:';;';:. come up to the specification?-Yes:':· .. ': ,. ,:.; Ii .. ' ."~'Jr .;tIll, f, o!)r: 891. What were the specifications .?:--The .. same. . They. were .. supposed. to. be full cut, timber 8'leetc6 inches dong. and ·as·. near. :as possible to,be' se'asoned .timber, fr.eeofJhearta.nd. sap,-, ." 892. Has your experience led you to the conclusion· that there are some kinds· of timber that .need;bolting iLused as sleepers ?..:.,..Yes. 1 ...~.;. '" ... ,. ," -.' \ • ','.' :,' 893. Is that sort of timber generally-.bolted :in· connectjon with 'Government railways?.,.--; I believe so; I am not aware 'of it. . " . , . 894. You believe so but do you know?-I do not know. any instance .. 895. If you do not know say you'do not know?-I do not. . 89,6. "Was.,thel'e . nny particulan instructionoin. reference~ t01the· sleepers, s.uch .ascutting off little bits at the end, _~ayl: half. I an inch, to :Ibring. them to measure, .-that caIJie' under your obser,vation ?-No.. '. . -', . .. ;'. '. : . , '.. (" : .;. ]ilj ~12.89'i:· They· ne;ver,:refused ,any Isleepers that, you·, delivered because they were·too long ?.-l\lJr .tMt:{:know is,.thattbeing ;upollLtherlin'eJ used.:to;see what they wer.e .by.cross.,.cuttiI;lg the .ends i 91 the sleepers off. .J .:' ';".:', 898. WhaLwas-the sizeof.the.,pieces.cut.off the ends of the sleepers ?--:Three,,four, five, or sixt'inches, .perhaps some 'a little more, some a little. less.. , 899. Was there any uniformity of' practice as far as you observed in the conduct.ofM:r. I:?ty~es' and Mt:·Kemin rejecting .01' passing. sleepers ?-No uniformity .. 'All.t.he t.imber. that came down;.from,the Woodenddistrict· I considered a:superior tip:lber .. to the ,timber, I WJ!,S. cuttiJ;lg J~t Nash's, and during the time I was at Spencer street that had lain there some considerable time, a fortnight or three weeks; in the sun and it was,;split,' I did:not·thinkit.any detriment to it a.Lnd I sent it out and.. ·i-t ;w:as ,colldemned;. and during ,the time I was·at,Mr. Nash~s I had to supply the place of this split t.imber and they approved, of'·:it,· and· I consider that the W oodend timber was far. superior to that from Nash's.; . '. ;' I:". :' .. : .. ,:" . ".; 900. When;you sa,y ".split,".do you mean split the whole length or-only at the end?-Say· 5- inches to 12 inches from the end. ....; ,; ; 901. A wrt of split that i" easily cured by bolhng?-Yes.. , . ; .. 902. DicLy.ou .. take.any.. notice.of.tthe fencing mat~rial?---c-Not ~ny more than brjnging it out from where it was split and passing it. . . '. 903. Selecting it ?-Selecting it.. , '. ..' .' . 904. Were your. instructions from Mr: Leggat· to select timber of good .qua:lity?-;-Y:e.f!: I inspected Mr. Nnsh:s site and informed ,Mr. Leggat that it. was a difficult country to w.ork. He said the department approves of the timber there and we must get it, and we did so. . ·r. '" I '" 905.. Will you tell ns in' your own words, the nature of the directions you had? NIl'. Billing objected to the introduction of conv~rsations between Mr. Leggat and t.lte witness. . , . /. . ... ,;90601B.'1f 1111' . .Vale.-What did you do .. in selecting .this timber-what course did ~'O:U .take.? -There are certain sizes belonging to those sleepers, .and if any of them. were what ]consldere.9" under: size, and did not come up to the' specifications, as they term it, they used to throw them out, and all good sound timber, and free from splits and gnm, as we could possibly get. . \." 907. And the fencin o' material you selected was good ?-Yes, I considered it first-class. 908. To your knowl~dge,. was any of· that aftE)rwards rejected which you Flclected ?-·Yes, some of it was rejected.·: . ;. 909. What were.youdoing prey'iou~ to.: going into Leggat's employment ?..,l ,:,assawing at~:VV,oodend.' . ,') ',':' r'l . ",,_ •.. ' ,., .... F·" .. _.. .c, .~ ...." ••• ".". ,'; .,.' 31 910: Sawing sleepers'?:":"';'l helped tolsaw 12,000' sleepers~' , '," ' "< " ' 'r'll '.' ,i,,' W,lUiam ;Wlllker, "9111,!Fo,r,,what portion, oHhe· railways ?-The"Gippsland:.,railway 1and the '801a.c,ral1 way ...;" 122h~r~~gSo. 912J'Ao'y other ?-'Infact.I have been sawing sle~pers, f0r the whole ofthe'rallways:J :" ,',·a 913. In different parts of the colony?-Yes, and out of the colony. 914. And, of your knowledge, d0 you know anything a;bout, the Lproportion'" of the~sleepers that were rejected after. you sent';them down ?-I have ikllowil aboutl25 p'er centJ; ,and "in. some of the sleepers I have In1owlr50 per cent., ; ,:. i' 'l', ' I~ I'i 915. Are you speaking now of those supplied by Mr. Leggat ?-'-T·speak of,the' sleepers lipon- the Gippsland raihva,y!' .1 ~'" ' , ," ., ' .. \ ~i ',.." ,... " ,~ , , 916. In other contracts, what I proportion have, you known ?-Iamassisting tolcnt,sleepers ,for the, Goulhurn railway,' and the average,..I think, is 3'per~cent. " ' .. '" ':,' -.' ,:', ' 911. That is the line just opened ?-Yes. J :'f'~ f , .. : : 918: J!A.lre Ithose~:sleepers: redgum ?-'-They are redgum;)"': ,! 1 ", • '~, '''.'' I ,,;i: 919. vVere they all absolutely true to measure ?-N0 ; in fact it is impossible. 920. What do you mean' by impossible. ,lsI it that ·,the shap'e' of- the'tree previmts,their all being true itertshape ?.;.;.:.-NO'L For.. instance, in'cutting sleepers, ,when yon' get) a'piece of timber upon the bench, we do not like to throwaway a piece that shows a very slight' wane,' and: even if it'is :slightly split at the end;'iwe what they'caH crosscut it 1 off, if it, admits df~it in the'length; but I .c0nsider myself, in nigardto ·the two'distinct species' of, timber, that: they: are'not so'liable to split as the stringy bark or messmate. ',' .. , CI 921-.--Byl'the aOfnm:ittee;~;]1edgum~is less. liable?-'--Y'es, Fedgum is'less'liabJe;~\' : -',t·; f:tli, "i '922."BpiMl'. v:ctle:;...;.c.Wel~e';those .. sleepers ,put linto',the Goulburp'railwaY'lmtl into position :;:t;lniost,immed'iateJy Mter'dutt'ing'?~Yes, '. - , . ":1': ," ",'IIT •• .""\ r,\ ' ", "';' '; , 923. And that would he a very great advantage to thecontractor.?."....;..Yes; it is. 'I. : ,: . 924:';Am6hito keep the' ,timber' 'hanging about the groimd would·be a very great' detriment to the, contractor it would raise his average to 15 per cent. I lmow it by the timber lying at the mill. If the inspector-did not comefol' a week, it 'would increase: our percentage irr',splitting aloue. ' ,:1 Ill". . , 925. And you have cnt timber,·.l believe; for, export from Victoria ?~Yes ..' 926. For what country?-India. ., , : .,921:,~:An)'where else,?'-.C..Adelaide. I have been two yel1rs ,cutting jarrah. 928. In Western Australia?-Yes., " , " 929. Aud you had considerable opportunities of inspecting the sleepers and other timber used in connection with Mr. Leggat's or Mr. MacNeil's contract ?-Yes. 930. What is your general opinion of the timber -that 'was used ?-The description of the ,timbtirds!:messlnate or stringy, bark; I consider it as good as any I 'was workiug amongst. 931. Did you pay any attention to a large nnmber of rejected sleepers upon the line ?-Yes. 932. What was the character of those sleepers generally?-In a ·great ll1easure the timber lay so IOl1g'atlJthe mill that every day any of those sleepers were produced, from the day they were ,prod~ced theytb'egan-to deter.iorate, and if they are exposed td -the sun and weather· they split, and if there .aret/any. imperfections. they soon show. .1 consider if ,the sleepers were put in as soon as tliey carilc.from the saw,;'rrot the leastd:.lOlibt not so large a ,percentage would have been thrown out. 933. Would bolting"have"saved a percentage of the·rejected sleepers ?~Yes. , .' , 934.;~]])0·youthink that a number of sleepers put.into'the ·Goulburrr Valley railway will be as bad as a large percentage upon the Gippsland line whem'they'have been in the Goulburn Valley line twelve months ?-No. " '. ' '., ". , . 935. ~Vhy not ?-It is an, interlocked timber, our timber: was a' free splitting timber or a 'quick g.rowtn, Of!;tim·ber. . Now if you take Mount"Cole,' Bullarook, 'or MtlUnt Macedon, I consider Mount Oole is a superior timber to Bullarook, and Bullaroo'k a superior timber to M.ount Macedon, and I th~nk tll_~re i~ very little difference" between' Mount :Macedon and 'Gippsland. Mount 'MacedoDls'a q'tll'ck gro\vth oftimber:J. ,"" r' r ,,: :' ... ,,' I ',;, '.",' ' 936. Are.any·ofthe,'sleepers you' cut r~jectedfor fungns:?~Yes., '. '! 937. Who" statedllthat !tho'se,' sleepers were rejected' fOl'ffungusl?--'-I have a 'note from Mr. Leggat, telling me not,tO'lserrd':any more'sleepers with fungus;':;:q :' ,,' .Jib'. Billing objected. ~ .." .,' " 938. By Mr. Vale.-Then Mr. Leggat refused to take delivery of any more sleepers from you, becausei'Y'ou- sent s~me fungus,?-'-He told :me not to'.send',inany more sleepers with the fungus on;, and-I~did,'so. ~ I,tried·,in some'.cases ,to scrape it' off, 'and wash it·wjth a little water and a cloth. . J ;L"\ 939:;JWa8~this,,fullgus"the-result'{rf.sweat.in: stacking the sleepers ?-,-Yes. ", 940. Or was it the result of anything else ?-It was the result of stayin(J' awhile in the ~tacks, an~ ft was a very wet season, and then, the sun comil~g upon'the sleepers7 a sweating set 'm~ ;::and~ 1.f1 thei\sleepersl had' been :so stacked :as to';,let the ,wllld get in, it would :not have taken place. 941. How/were they:stacked?.:-No,space between them 'at a:ll. " " ., ' , !" i J 942:T;y.Ou:~:do' not, know; of: your own: knowledge that the 'Railway ~DepartIilent reject.ed them ~forJ.fnng;!ls'::-[l(¥,'OUl only 'kno'\Vilthat Mr .• Lecrcril.t,.refllsed:':to take ,them' with·,fri[JO'us ?'-He did refuse Jto"ta~e tiimhe.r3fr.9ID 'rne that'h'ad\fungusrup~n'rt; the department said it was bdry;rot'. . 943. Did the fungus affect the quality of the timber in any way ?-No, not that I am aware of. ':i,} ~~;')IQ44 .. It·:did not' in' any way! injure theJtimber ?"'--'-Nof'in'.anyi way; \, " ; JiffJ'if.:'7945. Didt you/come i.in cont~(ie :with ~ this line when" they .. were ';layingthe longitudinal sleepers ?-Yes. 32, WUlhiril, Wa11",ir, 946. 'What was the effect of using' long-itudinal sleepers up()n sleepers so used should OOlIttntled • • f h I ~ ~ , 22nd Jan. llisD. lmagme, rom t e way the s eepers were khocked about and torn about; putting them under other sleepers, and pulling them out in the way it was done, that even 75 per cent. of those used would be condemned. 947. Were they pulled out from amongst the metal ?-Yes. 948. And the whole of the other sleepers to which the iron rails were attached had to be lifted bodily, I suppose ?-Yes, they had to be lifted a certain amount, but that was after a certain amount of metal was put,down'. ' 949. When the metal was put in, the longitudinal sleepers hadt~) be dr!1gged out, through the whole of the metal ?-Yes, I saw the men getting them out. ' 950; How was it done ?-In a very rough manner, anyhow; they pulled them out wit~ picks. 951. Was there any other mode of getting them out ?--:-1 do not think you could have got them out bv hand. , 952: Thev were so fixed with the metal on each side ?-Yes. 953. Would the sleepers laiq trausversely upon the longitudinal ones be injured by the : ' exposure to the atmosphere ?-Yes, 954. :Would that tend to increase the number of injured sleepers ?~ Yes. 955. Did it come within your 'knowledge how the sleepers were put upon the Goulburn Valley railway?-Yes., ' 956. Will you describe to the Committee how the sleepers were'put,on there ?-Yes. The formation is down,' !1nd they have a large roller that rolls the earthwork before' laying down the rails. The rails and sleepers are put upon the formation, and then the ballast comes upon .the top, similar to what was done upon the Gippsland raHway. , , 957. You say in constructing the Goulburn Valley railway just opened the earthwork was put in form and rolled 958. And after that the sleepers were put upon the earthwork?-Yes. 959. Upon the 9-inch b!1llast ?-No, they are lifted off the earthwork on to the ballast. 960. Those were the permanent sleepers.for the line ?-Yes. 961. And then the rails put upon the sleepers ?-Yes. 962. And then the ballast dropped upon the sleepers ?-Yes, both rails and sleepers. 963. The trucks running upon the rails ?-Yes. 964. And then the sleeper were lifted ?-Yes. Cross-examined by A-Ir. Billing. 965. With regard to the longitudinal sleepers, have you ever seen a line,constructed with them ?-No, I do not know that I have. ' 966. Yon never have ?-No. , 967. Do yon know how it is done ?-Tramroads; I know longitudinal tramroads. , , 968. But do you know anything about the thing you are talking of. Except the description . you have given us here of the permanent way put down upon the earthwo:t:k, you know, nothing of ' the construction by longitudinal sleepers, or whether it is better or worse for the contractor.' Do not you know about it; do not keep us all day?-1 know about tram roads. . 969. Whereabouts was the forest where you cut the 7,000 sleepers-~hich forest was it ?-It was part of Gippsland forest, north of Pakenham. 970. Gippsbnd forest is a big place ?-It is a large forest. 971. Whereabouts was it ?-Seven or 8 miles from Pakenham. 972. When did you first come upon those works ?-Either in June or July, jnst about the .time of Mr. Leggat'taldng over the contract. ' 973. Wh!1t year was it; 1876 was it?-1875 or 1876. 974. But 1875 or 1876 makes a great difference-one man was in it in 1875, and the other in 1876-can you give it to us with accuracy?-Somewhere about 1875, I think. 975. Did you know Neil MacNeil ?-Yes; I have a slight knowledge of him. 976. Was he there at the time you were there ?-He was about leaving. 977. You say you took the hest of the timber of this fOl'est?-Yes. 978. Roundabout ?--Yes. . 979. And I think you told us that you took messmate and stringybark ?-Yes. 9HO. Was anyone else beside you supplying sleepers for this contract? - Yes; a great many were supplying sleepers. 981. From what forest were they supplying sleepers ?-There was a Mr. Christian, at Woodend .. 982. That is one ?-Yes. 983. What others. I do not want the whole lot of them, but give us some ?-There was Mr, Quiggill. , 984. Another?-1 do not know whether there was a Mr. Stewart, of the Bass. 985. Now I ask you generally were there five or six altogether?-Yes; there were t}mt much. 986. You speak of course only for. the sleepers and the fencing that you snpplied yourself? -I can speak of the timber that I passed from other mills, and timber that I passed at Spencer street, and at St. Kilda" .. 987. Speaking of the timber for t~is particular li~e" in wh~t othe: forests or pieces of forest did the other 'men cnt?-1 was cuttmg at Mr. Nash s, about elght mIles from Pakenham; Western Port, and W oodend. 33 988. Were there many sleepers npon the line at the time you commenced ?-No; not a William Walter, c.mtinued, great many. . . 22nd Jan. 1880. 989. Do you know were most of the sleepers, if not all of them, supphed before MacNeIl left the work ?-No; I do not know that they were. . 990. Were any of the sleepers objected to as being full of sap. Now answer that plam 'question ?-I am not awa,re that they were objected to on account of sap. . 991. You are not aware ?-No. 992. You only tell ns generally that they were condemned-" rejected" is the word you made use of; but as to the nature of them can you tell us that they were full and well cut sleepers ?-I can tell vou what is generally done in the trade. ' 993. But I ask about these particular sleepers. It is a plain question ?-My instructions from Mr. Leggat were-- ' 994. Never mind your instructions. Answer me, as a matter of fact, were those sleepers that you say were rejected any of them full of sap ?-There may have been s9me of them; but there was plenty of'-- 995. Did you ever see the contract 1-In writing? 91'6. This contract that we are talking about ?-I have seen the railway. 997. This printed contract ?-I have not seen anything of the kind. 998. "Free from heart sap,.and from large knots, and shakes of every description," are you aware that all the sleepers were of that character?-I will swear that many sleepers were condemned that had none of those imperfections in them. 999. You swear that?-Yes. 1000. Did you examine them particularly?-Yes. 1001. Where were they?-Upon the railway. 1002. In a heap ?-No, thrown' out upon the side of the line. 1003. Were any of those too small ?-None of mine were. 1004. Could you distinguish your sleepers, drawing a distinction from the others ?-None that I passed or cut. I do not draw a distinction. . 1005. Do you know of any others being small ?-I do not know of any others being small. 1006. You know the dimensions, you gave us them, 9 ft. x 4j- in., and 8 ft. 6 in., with an allowance for shrinkage?-Yes. . 1007. Did you examine thE.l different sleepers there with such accuracy that you can tell whether they ag-!eed with the contract; you know we have so many witnesses upon this point as well as you?-:r es, that is aU true enough. 1008. Now about the sizes ?-All the timber that I know of, such as the timber that came from the Bass river or from Mr. Christian's, in fact, I told you I had to get 12,000 of them myself. I knew great. supervision was used over those that came from Mr. Christian's. 1009. I did not ask about the supervision, I ask about the question of fact. I have evidence of this point, and I want you to give me yours ?-I believe myself that the timber was up to the measurements. 1010. I want to test your accuracy you know upon this 1-- Mr. Vale objected to Mr. Lunt's being in the room. ' Mr. IJunt withdrew. Mr. Billing asked that Mr. Lunt might be allowed to remain, his evidence having been taken, and he having been examined and cross-examined by counsel and by the Committee, and suggested that MI'. Lunt was to some extent upon his trial there being grave imputations made upon him in the petition. The Chairman intimated that the Committee were not aware that Mr. Lunt was in any way upon his trial, and remarked that if that ground was taken it would remove the Committee's enquiry from the sphere of public utility to that of private interest, and intimated that Mr. Lunt had better remain out of the room. 1011. By .Mr. Eilling.-How much of the fencing did you supply?-I suppose for about 15 or 20 miles of fencing. 1012. 'Vas it in the early part of the contract ?-Yes; one portion was in the early part, and one portion in the later part. 1013. Do you remember at what part of the line it was ?-Yes; I passed the rails at Spencer street, and the other portion in the forest, up behind Pakenham. 1014. Did you prepare the fencing altogether for being put up ?-No. 1015. Did you mortise ?-No. 1016. You did not?-No. 1017. How was that done-by whom ?-By the men employed, the fencers. 1018. By the contractors?-Yes. 1019. Did you observe anything about the mortising?-No, I did not pay any attention to that. 1020. You did noH-No. 1021. Did you observe anything of the style of the fencing, of the mode in which it was prepared ?-I paid attention, but I did not feel an interest in it, for I had nothing to do with it further than getting the timber. . 1022. Where were you engaged, or what were you employed about before you went to Nash's ?-I was at Spencer street passing timber, and' at St.. Kildn. and Mordialloc. 1023. Were you cutting timber before that?-Yes. MRS, LEGGAT, E 34 WUl~m:;Will!(er. 1024, VVhere?-Woodend..."·""· I ~~" ,." I. 22~g~~~ets8o~ " 102fi. What place at \'Voodend ?~Christian's. ':, , ,.', 102f1. Were yon cutting tim bel' near this line?"':":" Yes, two days for; Mr. Fraserj not neaf this. line. ' , ',' : . ".' 1027:· Before-you went to Nash"s,?.L..:.:.I '.vas cnt~illgi:Lt Christian's, at would be six months till I got them out., . <, 1064. How: long were theyexposed'?-Some of' th'ein 'wei'e 'exposed six months; ,and some only about six weeks. '.' '::0:'' : '", ,_ ", " .. , 1065. And after they were dehvered ou the h?e were they .exposed ?-The:y were ImL m as ", tl}(! :railway caine along, for w,e were as it'wer~ fonowmg:up the'l:atlwB:Y' .', ..i, / ' •• • < 1066. Is it customary upon the other l111e8 you had exp~nence m to have sol~rgea quantity 'pfsleepers; have you ever, in any case, seen so large a quantity of sleepers aCc'umulated' at any ,Pne . time ?-No, never. .;. 35 ·.i I understand ,the ,imputation to be.thaLthese ,sl~pers, were um~ecessarily. exposed, or Wllllft~ W-al1!:w, exposed for an unnecessary length of time., , '. ~2;g':J~~~8s()., llfr. Bil1in,q.-Yes ; but the object of my,question was to show that it wp,s in the contractors' power to have prevented that, if they choose, by using them. i.Mr. Vale.-And our contention is, that the department compelled us to keep from 12,000 to 15,000 sleepers continually exposed in the longitudinal position, which was .a novelty, and a .noveltythat.they ceased to use upon the extension of this contract. The witness withdrew. James Gibb, examined. James Glbb, 22nd Jan, 1880• .J 067. By the Committee.-: What are you ?-A farmer and grazier. " 1068. By Mr. Vale.-You own some land at Berwick ?-Yes. . 1069.· You ·are of opili.ion ,that yon had a good quarry in that land, I believe?-Yes. 1070. And about the time that MacNeil got his contract for the section of the Gippsland line, you ,had intervie:ws with .some people about. opening a quarry; w:illyou mention Who they were, and under what circumstances ?-I was under the impression that.I.had stone upon the land, and I had several interviews with MacNeil upon the subject, and told him I thought I could likely show him a place upon the land where he ,could very likely get ballast for the railway. 1071. By the Committee.-Upon what land ?-;-Upo.p. my property at Berwick. 1072. It was MacNeil you told this to?-Yes, the contractor. 1073. By Mr. Vale.-Will you tell :ns :wh~t took place after that between you. and MacNeil ?-I put on several men to sink shafts to test the ground and ascertain whether ston,e was there or not. 1074. What was the ·result ?-Of course',ve tried in several places, and could not find the ,stone; latt.erly we found the place where the present quarry was opened upon my property. 1075. About what date did you find thatf""""Shortly after MacNeil started upon the contract -sometime in 1875, I think. 1076. Early in 1875?-Yes. 1077. After you opened the trial shaft,w11at took place ?-J\iacNeil came and looked at it, and of course he thought the stone would do-thOught in would m~ke very good ballast, and he brought Mr. Lnnt up to look at it, and after that 'I saw Mr. Lunt, and asked him whether the stone would do for ballast, and he told me it would make excellent ballast, and after that I entered into arrangements with MacNeil to allow him to open a qnarry and take the stone out. lQ78. By the Committee.-Who told you it would make excellentballast?-:\lr. Lunt. 1079. The Government engineer?-Yes. " 1080. By Mr. Vale.-At this stage were there 'no negotiations between you and the railway as to a deed of grant of the quarry site, and the tramway from it to the railway ?-That was after MacNeil opened the quarry. 1081. Will you give us the particulars dLtliat negotiation ?-I was simply asked by the .department if I would give them this deed to allow them to advance MacNeil money upon th~ stone that was upon the land. . .' 108~. But you did give ,a deed which was :approved by the Railway Department ?-No, :D. agreed to give them a deed. 1083. Was the deed never given ?-No, never. 1084. Never given ?-No. 1085. Whom did you, see about that deed?~M-acNeil. The department wr.ote to me to ask if I would be willing to sign this deed, and I agrr.ed t.o it. 1086. The-Railway Depart.ment. ?-Yes ; the Railway Department. 1087. Have you got the letter ?-No. 1088. Can you t.ell us about t.he date ?-I should say it was two months after the quarry was started. ' . . 1089. Somewhere about September 1875 ?-Yes, I should think so. , . 1090. I should like to ask t.he department to produce t.hat let.ter; perhaps they have got it. here. Did Mr. Watson sign that letter ?-I do not. remem,ber now, it is such a long time since. 1091. While t.he letter is being looked for I will go on. You were about. t.he quarry I suppose during t.he whole time it was being opened ?-Yes; it was close t.o my residence. 1092. Could you give the Committee any idea: of t.he expense to which Mr. MacNeil went. in opening this quarry""::""in laying down, as I helieve he did, a tramway did he not from the quarry' to the railway?--That is after that time; he had to remove. ,,' 1093. From the time he opened to the time: he removed?-That includes 1\'[r. Leggat's; contract too. . , 1094. What was the whole of the expendiflureupon your quarry?-I could not say; I can only give a rough idea. 1095. Well, give it?-I should say £4,000. 1096. You give Jhat as a rough estimate?-Yes. 1097 . .And he was allowed to take only avery~mall quantity of stone out of that quarry? -Yes.. . ' .] 098. Do you Tememberhow many yards ?--:-He ballasted, I should say, a m!le and a half of the lille.· . . 1099. ·Something like 800 or 900 yards to the mile, is it not ?-Yes. iBme~ Glbb;' 1100. ,That would be about 1,200 yards 1-Yes.-[ Certain papers were put into tlte witness's '22~':f::.'t880. ,hand, wllO perused tIle same.]' 1101. Is that the letter you got?-No; this refers to points and crossinD'S. , 1102. Further on the latter section, I think, contains something about the qnarry?-:-Yes, it refers to it. , 1103. That is not the letter yon got ?-No. 1104. Will you read that?-Yes: ~Oth December 1875. From 1\1r. Lunt to 1\11'. MacNeil. " A proper deed for the land upon which the line is to be laid must be made out by the Crown Socicitor at your expense." This is not what I received at all ; they asked me if :I would agree to that. 1105. When the quarry was being opened you were about frequently?-Yes. 1106. Were the offic,ials of the Railway Department there frequently?-Yes. 1107. Which of them ?-Mr. Lunt and Mr. Curtis; they were all abont there. Berwick was the head quarters; they resided in the district. ' II 08. Were they actually upou the site of the quarry, seeing it opened ?-Yes. 11 09. Did you see it opened ?-Yes. , III O. And saw the necessary ~teps being taken to put up the crushing plaut 1-Yes. 1111. And no notification was made to you that the stoue would not be acceptable?-No, none whatever. 1112. But you were asked to sign a deed ?-Yes. 1113. Aud were willing to do it 1-Yes. 1114. Are you any judge of stone ?-Yes. , 1115. What is the nature of the stone?-It is basalt that is the name given to it ; it is of volcauic formation, I believe. " 1116. It is not a clayey stone ?-No. 1117. It is a stone that would rather fall into a sort of sand than clay ?-Yes. 1118. Is it a sort of stone that if you were to heap it together and expose it to the atmosphere for six months, it would grow potatoes ?-No. 1119. An experienced agriculturalist told us in this room yester'day that it would ?-The stone is there now; it has been there five years, and I would like to see a crop of potatoes in it. , ] 1~0. Is there any grass, or are there any weeds growing in it now?-No, in fact they. are carting that verY,stone now to make the roads. ' , 1121. In what shire ?-In Berwick shire. 1122. Any other shire ?-Dandeuong. 1123. And that is th~ very stone that was condemned; it would 'not he taken at any price?-- , ' . 1124. And two shires have commenced to use your quarry?...... ,.They have used it since Mr. McNeil left it; they have used it.for two or three years. ' : 1125. By the Corrtmittee.-Is that for the road making or not ?-For road making and road maintenmlce. " " , 11~6. What gauge was the meta] broken to ?-T"\vo and a half. , '. ,1127. Does it stand that gauge ?-Yes, of course. So'me has mouldel'ed a little by standing ,snc,h a length .of time exposed to the weather. ' "," 1128. By M1'. Vale.-And it is really a good binding stone ?-Yes ; there is not better road making stone in the country. , 1129. Is it as good or better than the Pakenham stoner-What they are getting at the present tim~ ?, , ' "',, 1130. Yes ?-It is better for road making. 1131. Is it better than what the Railway Department got two or three years ago ?-Yes. 1132. From the time of the putting of the trial shaft to the inspection, aUfI on through to the opening up of the quarry, which I believe involved taking 10,000 or 12,000 yards of material, did it not ?-Yes. 1133. And on to the erection of the crushing plant you heard notliing from Mr. Lunt or allybody against the quarry, and then one day it was condemned ?-Yes. , , 1134. What did you hear then ?-One day Mr. Watson came down and condemned it. 1135. About what time was that?-1\1r. Watson condemned it when it was taken out upon the line. ' , , , , ,1136. And he did more than condemn, he said he would only give 20 per cent. of the contract price for it ?~That was Mr. Higinbotham I helieve afterwards. " , 1137. 1\11'. Hicrinbotham took some at 20 per. cent. reduction ?-Yes. - ' , 1138. What ;rid you SH,y to 1\1r. Lnnt when yon heard it was condemned 1-1 saw Mr. Lunt that very night. It was a sel'ious matter to me.'l'hey were destroying the, place. I wcnt and told 1\11'. Lunt tjmt if he did not accept the stone he mnst say so to them at once, Hnd not let them :go on and destroy the place nny more; and Mr. Lunt told me that there was five or six fcet of spoil to be removed from the top, and he oDly wanted to make McNeil mOTe careful, and make him open the quarry, and get a good deep face on it, so that he could get a good face, and the best of the stOlle. , 1] 39. After that there was an iuspection by 1\11' Higinbotham; was there not ?..,...... Yes. ',' , ,1140. You were,pre~enq-Yes. 1141. Will you tell us what took place.?-Mr. Higinbotham came up, and certainly disapproved of the stone to a certain exten~; bu~ he ordered either MacNeil or, Leggat-and I believe it was MacNeil-ordered him; to ,take,ont a sa1.llple of s~one, and he would ,come up in a. 37 week's time and see the stone and whether he could approve of the sample. MacNeil did so, and James Gibb, he came np and examined the stone, and offered, I believe, to take it at a reduction of 20 per cent.. 2~~'18S0. 1142. Has that heap been upon the place ever since ?-Yes. 1143. Is it upou the ground now ?-Yes, a small portiori of it. 1144. Have you got any of it here?-Yes. 1145. Will you bring it in, please ?-Yes. - [The mitness mitlulrem, and immediately returned producing three bags containing different samples qf stone.J , 1146. Will you show those samples and describe them to the Committee ?-Number :1 IS the stone offered to be taken at a reduction of 20 per cent- [producing tlte same J. ~Mr. Billin.fl submitted that it would be better for the Committee to see the bnlk of the stone instead of these samples. 1147. By tlte Committee.-What do you mean by No.3 ?-That is the number on the bag. , 1148. Is it expressive of any peculiar quality; have ,you three qualities of stone here, or not?-- Mr. Vale.-Yes. '111e witness says that that is a sample of the stone which Mr. HiO'inbotham said was not good enough to be taken at the contract price of 6s. or 8s., but would take it at the reduction upon those prices of 20 per cent.; is that so?-Yes. 1149. Is this a fair sample of the stone ?-Yes. 1150. Picked np in the vicinity?-Yes. This-[producin.q a bag marked No. 2J-is the bottom stone; this is recently quarried .. 1151-2. I want to see the top shelving and the very lowest cut. Is that the bottom stone, No.2 ?-Yes, that is the bottom stone. ' 1153. About what depth is it ?--About 10 or 15 feet from the surface. No.3 was taken out four or five years ago, when the stone was first opened. 1154. "Vas it broken four or five years ago ?--Yes, it was taken from the very heap Mr. Higinbotham saw. 1155. B.Y Mr. Vale.-I understood you to say that the No.3 bag was taken from the very heap that Mr. Higinbotham refused to take as good stone, and insisted upon a reduction of 20 per cent. upon the two prices ?-Yes. 1156. And it has becn lying there for four years ?--Yes. 1157. And this is the stone the witness said would grow potatoes ?-Yes, this-fproducing a bag marked No.1 J-is the top stone; this is wll!1t we call the grey stone from tne top. The Committee.-This is the potato soil. J.l1r. Vale.-That is the potato soil. Mr. Billing.-This shows the necessity of the Committee doing as a view jury does, seeing . the locus' in quo, and judging for themselves. 1158. B:IJ Mr. Vale.-I believe the stone was selected from the spoil bank, was it not? A lot of this stone was thrown to spoil, and t~is last winter I got a lot of men, and broke up a large quantity of -it, and the committee can see the bulk of it at the present time, because there are 200 or 300 yards of it there, but the Committee would have to go very soon, for the shire councils are carting it away daily. . . 1159. Aud the whole of this material was broken from the rejected spoil bank?-Yes. 1160. And you had sold previously some 2000 yards to the shire councils ?-Yes. - 1161. After Mr. Higinbotham came, was there any distinct order to give up quarrying that you know anything about ?-No. . 1162. The quarrying still went on 1-Yes. 1163. And what took place afterwards ?-After that Mr. Leggat appeared, upon the scene, and there were three or more crushers erected. Water was brought from the Kardinia Creek, about a mile and a half, a,nd put ou, and they had the appearance of going to take the ballast out; . 'and, of comse, I did not know a,nything about the private arra,ngements at all. I] 64. And then suddenly the quarrying was stopped 1-Yes. , 1165. The whole of the clearing out and preparatory evidence was lost ?-Yes. 1166. And as far as your knowledge goes the material was removed to' another quarry? Yes, the crushers were all pulled down, the engines and boilers taken away, the tramway pulled up, and the blacksmith's shop pulled down, and everything cleared. 1167. Do yon know anything of the nature of the supervision over this quarry?-No, very little was taken out. 1168. Do you know anything about the fencing on this line?-Yes, it came under my own observation at my own place; that is all I know about it. 1169. What sort of fencing was it ?-Of course, when Mr. MacNeil went down there every body's paddocks were thrown open to everybody, and stray cattle wander'ed all over the place and everybody was at Mr. MacNeil to get the place closed, and get him to go on with the fenCing' and he took steps and put down a lot of stuff through my place ; and I could see the inspector there. Very little fencing was going on at that time. 1170. Do you mean you went down among the men working?-Yes, the railway ran through the middle of my place, and I saw them every day. 1171. Did you actually go among the men working 1-Yes. 'j 1 H2. Do you see the inspectors there 1-Yes, every day. 1173. Do you know the gentleman's name ?-The old gentleman; the first inspector is dead? ',", , ~1174. Mr. Bence?-Yes, I think that is the name. 1175.,:Any other,?-:I think Mr. Cardie was there latterly. 38 .J&mes .Gibb, J,I} ," 1176., And·after, thaUVlacNeiLwent on rapidly, and ,put ,up your fence to prevent your cattle 22n~::.e~8SO. straying?,-Yes.,,.,,' " " ' .. ,.. " . 11Ti. What was the nature of the fence wheli it was completed ?-A very good fence. 1178. Was any of the fencing pulled down after it was first erected ?-Yes. That was why we were so disgusted with MacNeil, because I had one part in cultivation, and he came to me and ,askedme.if, I'would ,allow him to re-erect a part of the fence on my la,nd about a yard off the line. I said I had no o~jection; in fact he had to dp it, and the men threw the fence in upon my property. ] 179. After the contractor put up .the fencing,the Government inspector being about at the i1time; MacNeil asked to ,be allowed to put the fence upon your land ?-Yes. 1180. So that he might have the site to put up another fence ?-Yes. . I , " 1181. And the first fence was a good, substantial, satisfactory fence ?-Yes, a good fence. !' .,1182. Have you seen fences upon other Government railway lines 7-Yes. U83. Was it as good an average fence as is upon these lines ?-Yes. 'J", .' 1184. Were you perfectly satIsfied with it?:-Yes. ';..' .. / U85. Did you notice how the rails met in the posts ?-Yes. 1186. Was it usually or unusually fine work 1-The first fence or the present fence? 1187. The present fence l-It was very well put up. They were very particular about the way it was erected. ' 1188. If you had been having a fence put up as a good first-class fence, would you have .taken the first fence that was put up ?-Yes.' , 1189. Do you know the f(mcing at the end of the Sale line?-Yes. -;, '.' '.1190., That is the end near l\:Ielbourne ?-No, the Sale end. 1191. What sort of fencing is that ?-A good ordino.ry fence. 1192. Is it as good,as theJence MacNeil first put up ?-Just about the same. 1193. And that ho.s been left alone from the first ?-Yes. '(' J:., 11 94. When this quarry ,of youi-s ' specifiei1 in this contract; 101' the specification of thisAencing: in, the contract, in reference to the J!"!I,~~ ,,!llpb, fencing that was to be erected ?--Yes. , . . j2na~~;'~880. 1222. Have you read the specification ?-Mr. MacNeil had tenders out all over the works' .... calling for tenders for fencing material, and he ~ave the size of the material. , .. , 1223. And in that way you learned the Slze?-Ye$. \ " . f 1224. The fencinO' was pulled down, and you described it as pulled down. What particular part did you allude to w11en you spoke of its being pulled down; at what place ?-At Berwick; it was all pulled down through my property; all that was erected ~1t that time. U25. Is your property at Berwick itself?-,-Yes. ' .. , 1126. Over what extent in length does your property run ?-I should say a mile and three quarters. Of course it was not all erected,through the property, but what was pulled down. 1127. How much of the mile and three quarters was erected, would ,you say ?-I should say about half of it. . " Re-examined by Mr: Vale. 1228. I believe you had a conversation with Mr. Higinbotham ~bout this fencing?-Yes. 1229. Will you tell the Committee the nature of,that conversation?...... ;Of'course it was a matter uf indifference to me, but when Mr. Higinbotham was there I just mentioned the circqm stance to' him that the material 'was put along thi:dine, and I mentioned that the 'inspectors were walking past every day, and they allowed MacNeil to go on with the fence arid pay for it, and after it had been erected llC got 'a'memo. from the Depa;rtment stating 'that. he was to remove'the whole of the fencing within ten days, and I said if the Government D!')partment were going to do their business in that way it was'most extraordinary. ';It'was mifair of the inspector to reject the material ther:; he should, object before it was er~cted; an~ Mr. ~iginbotha;ni of course, had only my word'for It, and he smd.lf that was the case It was very unfmr. ' ,', 1230. Could you give us the date of that ?-I could riot give e~actly the date. It was just aftel·. ·Mr. Higinbotham came from home, ~ ~ '1231. By tIle Committee.-Wha't particular reasons did they 'give for rejecting that stone? --Reasons? . ", I 1~32. Y<:s ?-He gave no reasons at aU. I .do not know exactly the reasons he gave to MacNeil.' , . . 1233. There would be no notice given to you of any object.ion ?--:No. I had nothing to do with the depai'tment at all. It was MacNeil I had to do with. ' 1234. First of all you had !,\-n interview with ,Mr. Lunt, as engineer of the depart ment, as we understood, in the early part or your evidence. Did you understand that the terms you proposed were then verbally accepted by the Government that led up to the proposit.ion of preparing a deed?-Yes, of course: MacNeil told me about the deed. He said that the depart ment required the deed for the purpose of ~tdvancing money upon the stone. 1~35, I do not want it in connection with l\IcNeil at all. I understood you, in the early part of your evidence, to say that a deed was mentioned to yon-that a deed was required by the Government from you, empowering them to quarr¥ the stone;there?-,-Yes. 123(3. At this particular juncture were you under the impression that the Government accepted the terms as between yourself and them which you suggested ?-Yes. Of course I was under the impression that the quarry was going on, and that this deed would be required. . .' 1237. Have you any interest in this matter?-I have no interest in the affair, and it is' some five years since. . .' 1238, By Mr. Billing.-Do you know who wrote the letter you have referred to ?-I am nnder an impression that it came from Mr. Sutherland.," . _ By ~~£l'. Vale.-There is no question of the f[\Ct, but we should, like to see the letter, because the correspondence between Mr. I~unt and Mr. MacNeil proves that the department did want the deed executed;· that we heard this morning., But, .as Mr. Gibb referred to the letter, of which I was in perfect ignorance, I asked for it. , . Jlfr.8itlin,rJ pointed .o·ut that, as Mr. Gibb had referred to .the letter, and was summoned as a withess, it.was for him to,produce it; and stated that the books of the department had been searched, and 'that the" letter could not be. found, .but that if the Committee desired it further search could be made. < • '.. ." " .M?'. Vale intimated that he did not desire to press for this letter. '. 1239. By the Committee.-We understood you to. say that immediately after Mr. Higin botham's ,arrival from England .yon met him' on the ,ground, and directed his attention to the circumstance that the Government inspectors had' allowed this fencing to be erected, and then condemned it after it was up?-Yes, . , " 1240. ,And that Mr.,Higinbotham indicated that he thought it was very· unfair, provided it had boen ,done.' . <: '. .' , 1241. B,1f Mr. Vale.-Will you look at that fork-[producing the same] ?-Yes. 1242. Have you seen anything like that before ?-¥es.:. ' '. 1243. Was that the sort of fork with which the stone was loaded into the drays ?-I believe so . .1244., By tke Committee.-:-And no stone sm!J,ller than that .was sent from the quarry?-Of . course)lD: the,case of my quarry they.were not so particular. I believe. they were more particular in the case of "Wilson's stone. ' .~245. By Mr. Vate.-You do not k~ow anything about the supervision at Wilson's quarry? -No. ". / '" : " , ' . . 1,246. By Nlr. Bitlin.fJ.-;-Did you examin"e the fence "of the Gippsland line near Sale i-Y.es. 1247. Did you examine it particularly?-Yes. . " 40 Jauie. OIbb, 1248. Were you upon the ground, or did you merely see it from the' train ?- I was upon the 22n~:~880. ground near the town.. . 1249. You have gIven an estImate of about £4,000. I presume that is only an approxima tion or guess-you have not gone into any calculation ?-No, I have not gone into any calculation. 1250. You do not know anything, of your own knowledge, of what was spent upon it? -No. 1251. By Mr. Vale.-But if Mr. Lunt said it was from £2,000 to £3,000 at least would you consider that a fair estimate?-I should say nearer £4,000 than £3,000. There were very lara-e engines erected, and water brought all the way from the creek. b . 1252. By Mr. Billing.---Can you tell how many yards were taken out by that contractor?- I should say something over 2,000 yards. . 1253. Of all kinds of material ?---I could not say. I have not measured it all up. 1254. Can you come anywhere near it approximately, because if you give a mouey calcu lation there should be some data for it ?-I could not say. 1255. By Mr. Vale.--I think at the time you employed Mr. Shakespeare, the engineer, to measure up for you?-Yes. ' 1256. And he has all the quantities ?-Yes; he has all the quantities in the arbitration case that there was. , 1257. And those quantities influenced you in settling with.MacNeil for the quarries ?-Yes; I paid Mr. Shakespeare for measuring up the quantities. 1258. By the Committee.-Can you give the number of engines and boilers and their size? -He has had one large engine and boiler, and a small one. . 1259. You can give the size 1-1 should say 20-horse power, and eight or nine crushers. There was a small engine at the creek pumping water to siipply the engine. The tramway was about half a mile in extent I should say. That was all putdown an!'l pulled up again; and there were buildings there, a blacksmith's shop and office all in working order, when he gave the order and it was all pulled up again. 1260. Were all those works erected at the time because Mr. Lunt said he accepted the quarry?-Yes, that was the reason. I asked his opinion whether he would accept the stone before ever I agreed with MacNeil at all. I would not have gone into it if he would not have taken it. 1261. By Mr. Vale.-Will you mention the amount you wer~ to get ?-I was to get threepence a yard. _ " 1262. By Mr. Billing.-Was the agreement for threepence or sixpence ?-Threepence. The witne88 withdrem.. . Willlam Wilson, William Wilson examined. 22nd Jan, 1880. 1263. By Mr. Vale.-What are you ?-A farmer. 1264. Where at ?-Berwick. . . 1265. Do you farm a considerable quantity of land?-Yes; I farm a good piece. 1266. Have you ap.y recollection gf entering into an engagement' with Mr. Leggat as to a supply of ballast for that section of the Gippsland line ?-Yet'l, I have. 1267. About what time ?-Abont the 24th or 26th of May. I Jiave that agreement in my pocket here., . , 1268. Will you produce it?-Yes-rproducing and handing in the 8ame, which was read by the clerk, a8 follom8J :-" Memorandum of agreement entered into this 24th day of May 1876, between William Wilson, farmer, of Berwick, of the one part, and James Leggat, railway con tractor, of the city of Melbo~rne, of the other part: The said W. Wilson hereby agrees to give to the said James Leggat the full right to quarry and remove from his quarry, at Berwick, whatever stone he may require to be used in ballasting any portion of his contract for the first section of the Gippsland Railway, giving him at all times free access and egress to the said quarry, for the consideration of sixpence per yard forward of the permanent way, and sixpence per cube yard for approaches, when the same has been completed to the satisfaction of the Government engineer. The said William Wilson to receive as progress payments at the above rates every calendar month. The abovenamed William Wilson to receive the balance on receipt of the final certificate from the Engineer-in-Chief. The abovenamed William Wilson still further binds himself to deliver from his hand a letter to the Engineer-in-Chief binding himself to offer no obstruction to his removing any rails or other materials belonging to the Government whenever he may require the same; and it is to be distinctly understood that any part of the quarry ~hich may have to be stripped, the said stripping to be deposited in the neigh bonrhood of the waterholes near his house. And the said James Leggat hereby agrees to the foregoing conditions, and binds himself to comply with all the stipulations contained therei-Q. And let it be understood that the progress payment is to consist of 90 per cent. upon all the ballast returned by the department.-W. WILSON, JAMES LEGGAT. Witness-JoHN IRONS." , ]269. Row long had your quarry been opened prior to that date ?-About October, 1859. 1270. By you ?..:....No, by Government. ] 271. :For what purpose ?-Hoadmaking. . 1272. In and about the neighbourhood?-Y es ; between Berwick and Melbourne. 1273. Was it used on any other occasion after that, prior to Mr. Leggat coming upon it? Yes, every year it 'was used, right up to the time Mr. Leggat came. 1274. By vour allowance?-Yes, by my .aIJowanC'e. 12i5, By the Government ?-Yes, and by the shires. The Dandenong shire, the Berwick shire, the Oak leigh shire-four shires used it. The Government coustrncted part of' the Oakleigh road, and they used it. ' 41 1276. They carted it down to "Oakleig-h?-Yes.. . WHliam Wilson, ~ f '\,r lb h t continued, 1277. How far would that be ?-They carted to the 12-mlle post r0111 "-'ie ourne, t a IS 22nd Jan. 1880. 15 miles from the quarry. . . 1278. How long- was that aft,er the first trIal of the quarry?-Twelve or fifteen years. 1279. Have you seen the roads upon which your stone has been used ?-Yes, I have. . 1280. Have they generally worn welH-They have worn well. Every person travellmg considers them first-rate roads. ] 281. In taking the stone out of the quarries for those twelve or fifte~n years, ~ow did the contractors take it and how did the officials pass it?-It was passed after It was dehvered upon the road. I cann~t say how it was passed. There was no inspector at the quarry till they were put in in Mr. Leg-g-at's time. . . 1282. Were any complaints ever made to you by the Government or by other bodieS takmg stone prior to Mr. Leggat taking the contract ?-No complaint at all. . 1283. And Ifor those prior contracts was the stone taken as it fell from the face ?-It was usually filled with forks. I recommended forks to be used because there was a lot of fine stuff that was no use and would add to the weight; and I recommended forks because that would get rid of the fine stuff. 1284. Did Mr. Lunt come into the quarry frequently ?-He was there several times. . 1285. Was he there prior to your entering into the arrangement with Leggat?-He was. 1286. Was the quarry stripped of the surface soil prior to the blasting?-:-All except the last shot. The last shot went a little too far in, further than they expected, and there was a little of the stripping came down; but in my opinion all the other shots were stripped. 1287. You consider that all except the last shot were stripped of the surface soil ?-;-Yes, ,well stripped; in faet the first half of the stuff was taken withOut any stripping being necessary, because they went lower than the bed of the quarry. At the time Mr. Leggat began they went 25 feet below it. 1288. Were you frequently upon the quarry while Mr. Leggat was working it ?-I was there very frequently-three or four times a day. 1289. Did you know the Government inspectors there well ?-Yes, I knew them well. 1290. Did you consider that they treated the contractor's laborers fairly in directing the work ?-I think they were rather more particular than there was any necessity for. 1291. Did you ever speak to any of the inspectors ?-I did. 1292. Mention his name ?-Mr. Scott. 1293. Whieh Mr. Scott 1·-The inspector in the quarry. 1294. Is it John or Thomas ?-I do not know his Christian name. I never heard it. 1295. What did you say to him ?-He objected to a certain part of the quarry. He wanted the top stone taken out, and would not allow it to be used; and they used some of it upon the roadway to the quarry, and I drew his attention to the way it wore so well, and he said, "'Well, our contract is for the blue metal, and'if there is blue metal we will have it." Mr. Vale referred the Committee to page 19, section 46 of the contract. The same was read by the Chairman as follows :-" The ballast is to consist of good clean gravel, or quartz tailings free from loam, clay; or earthy particles, or basalt or other approved stone, broken so as to pass in any direction through a ring 2t (two and a half) inches in diameter; and all stones that will not pass through a 2i- (two and a half) inch ring must be removed from the ballast before it is laid on the formation, and it is to be laid on the formation in such form and thickness and in such layers as directed by the superintending officer. The ballast must be of a quality approved by the superintending officer, and none must be made use of unless he shall have examined and approved of it; and the contractor must during the whole of his time for mainten ance, &c., keep the line boxed tlp to the extent shown on the drawings, and to the satisfaction of the superintending officer." 1296. By Mr. Vale.-The contract does not say it shall be bluestone; will you look at this-[handing the contract to the witness 1,-Do you see anything about bluestone in the con tract ?-Yes. I see bluestone mentioned bere, it says basalt. 1297. But that does not say bluestone ?-No: r.mt bluestoneis basalt.. ] 298. Do you think the average run of your stone was equal to quart.z tailings or ironstone gravel ?-I think so, but I have very little knowledge of what quartz tailings are, I have never been a digger among quartz. 1299. The inspectors were almost eontinually in the quarry, were they not ?-They were. 1300. And they exercised this supervision while the stone was being put out of the quarry into the carts ?-They did; there was only one inspector at a time. 1301. Did they ever in your presence order a man to lessen the quant.ity they put in with the fork ?-I never heard them order a man to put less, but I have seen them go round and tell the men to shake the fork so that none of the loose dusty stuff would go in with the stone. 1302. That is very much like lessening the quantity, if you shake the fork you shake off some of the loose stuff ?--It would a little. 1303. Have you seen any of the stone put to spoil because there was some of that loose stuff in it ?~I have, a gl'eat quantity of loads. . 1304. Did you ever suggest to the manager to save such a quantity of waste ?-I did su~gest that t~ey should screen the stuff so as to prevent such an amount of waste, and he did brmg screens mto the quarry. Mr. Scott would not allow t.hem to be used, iu fact I never saw them used ; they tried them and they were put aside. . MRS. LEGGAT. F 42 ,.'VlUb'~'Wtlsoo. 1305. What proportion of good quarried storie do you ·think~:Was Jeft-inli\poil ?~.I: have not .! ~g~a':1800. <-the.. !.slightest doubt that· 5,000, ,0r",p,O.oO ,yards .of 'good- quarried-: s"toue,·are~· lying :3.11,: over the place now. . .. , ..... ;., .',. . i '; .. ~! .' ·1300. Have you sold. any of, th~: stone ,since Mr;' Leggat :left it, ?-I"think· f30'::yards were sold, l;mt lam not sure.whether,it,was -in l\f.r.-;Leggat's"time.or·not; bHt.I.had nohi'eceived any for .,it·at·aIL .' .... .::l:, ~'i. '. . 1307. Did you ever know Mr. Lunt to come on to the quarrJ after a Shot had 1beeu,:fir.ed, <,.anrl:order all the stone brought down, by. .thati·shot. to be. carried'('or ,thrown,· to ,vbiie !tgn, '1~ .1": .I." 'I },.,~ 'I,) j ,', ,~' , • f t. (L 1"1'" . ." .",. t 'J ":.: '1334.~11 ¥r .. ~illi'f!.q.-,fJ;he quar,ry, has been op_enecHn '1859 ?:_:"""¥?s, 7', '.' ,.I : I' ":, ',. ' Ii"" 13a.~ .. ,;1,V;hp,t, tlP;le"dul. J\fJ:, L.egga,t . goAhere .?' d~ou ·madelan . agreement Wlthdum ·24 th,MIl:Y 1876 ?-Yes. '1::, . • , ; J j'.... '",!.. t .'1 \" ,; ,..J3;}6." Was· it at tllat;·Ml)Je,h'.e.)VenV~;-;-A,.week.or'a.fo~tnight.after.'he went:;. 1 ~ -I believe it was threepence per yard. q I. 1353. You asked sixpence and Gibbthreepence,?,-'-.,.Yes; lasked.sixpence,but I offered it to him. for less,~and he;would not. takeoit at all. ' •. 1 offered it to.him;for -threepence. 8;.!.yard. Thervitness-mithdrerv:" 0 J '.!. -,: .- .. , Peter 1\1 Uter, . ' . . Pet{lr ,Mille]" exat:r)~n~!I.. -;.,. - ,!..! .. 22n(l Ja.n. 1880. I • ,J 1354. Byllir. Vale.--:-What are you ?-A carpenter by trade. 1355. Have you had much experience in railways in reference to the timber and workJof; them ?-1 h:we been foreman upon the railways for the· last. si.;x:· years, ,.-..:. )oJ' i,;., .... 1356 .. Will yo.u,mention the railways .. \lpon which·you have been engaged ?-,-Yes. Gipps land, Dunolly, and St. Arnaud; and at present I am,foreman;fol'lFishbourne and. MortOtl uponl the N arrabri railway. , 1357. That is in New South Wales ?-Yes. '" _ ' .. ~.1358.You,were employ.ed; upon .MacNeiLa.nd Legga,tls, contract upon ,jillefirsb section of the Gippsland line, were you not ?-Yes, I was. .:-!. .! :.' :. 1359. For. how long?-About two years and ten months. ~.J \,.~ 1360. That was nearly the whole time ?-Nearly the whole time. . .1361. You had many opportunities of observing the inspection of timber in ,sleepers, piles, and otherwise upon the line, and of forming a judgment of how far it was of an ordinary character ()r more severe .than the ordinary character. Tell the Committee what you .thought of the super vision 1-1 thought the supervision was severe . .. " .. 1362. B!J tIle Committee.-Whydid you think that ?-Because.timber was thrown out that I considered good. . 1363. Timber for sleepers, or fencin o., or wha,t ?-Sleepers. . ' 1364. By ll£r. Vale.-Did you ever know timber refused because it was too young, thongh the· sleepers ·were fuiLsize4 without heart or sap .in Mr. Leggat's time ?...,...Yes,.ifI understand you; did I see sleepers refused that had neither he~rt or sap? . 1 '. . . 1.365. My question is have you seen sleepers refused because timber 'Vas too.young, though the sleepers were good full-sized sleepers without heart or sap ?-Yes, they were refused. 1366. Any number ?-Yes, a good number. . ' ' 1367. What do you call a good number ?-Three hundred or four hundred. 1368. And that was in Mr. Leggat's time ?-Yes. 1369. Did you turn oyer a lot of redgum sleepers that were refused IOn account of under size ?-Yes, I did. 1370 .. How many could not tell the number; but a good many-l:;ll1ndreds of them- hundreds. 1371. A good many hundred ?-Yes. 1372. Do you think there were a thousand ?-Yes; there was a .thousand. 1373. Were those condemned ?-Yes. 1374. By whom ?-By the inspector of the permanent-way. 1375. What was his name ?-William Styles. 1376. On what ground did he refuse them ?-Because they were under size. 1377. What did he call under size ?-Eight inches and three quarters.;. 1378. That is a quarter of an inch below?-Yes. . 1379. Do you think that the shrinkage had taken place upon the works,?-Possibly a good deal of it did. . , ; 1380: A~d would .that shrinkage have tnken place if the sleepers had been put into the ground at mne lllches the moment they arrived upon the line ?-I believe in time it would sh rink. 1381. They do uniformly shink, so to speak, a;; they age from the time of cutting ?-Yes. 1382. Were. any of.those slt;epers afterwards turned over by another inspector ?-They were. 1383. What inspe.ctor?-~r. Kerr. . . '.. : 1384. What course did he·'ta.ke ?_iHe passed some in and threw some out, ]385 .. Another cause of rejection was sun-crack, was it not ?-Yes, a gr~at m:llly. 44 I)etel' Miller, 1386. Were any sleepers passed which had formerly been rejected for some crack ?-No, continued, . 221111 Jan. 1880. I do not think so. 1387 They were not?-No. . 1~88.:Oo you think that .any were refllse~l which ought to have been allowed to go upon the hne, JUdglllg from your expel'lence at other railway works ?-Plenty, many a one. .. 1389 .. A large pl:oportion of the rejected redgum sleepers ought to have been allowed to go III If the ordlllary practICe had been followed?-Yes, I think so. . 1390. Were the slln-cracked sleepers, even after the sun-crack ?-That does not refer to the redgum sleepers. 13!:!1. No, it refers to the strillgybark and messmate ?-Yes. . 1392. Were the stringybark and messmate such sleepers as are usually allowed to be bolted by the Government in the construction of other lines?-Yes, if bolted they would be as good as ever in my opinion. . 1393. Have you ever seen in the colony any instances where sun-cracked stringybark and messmate sleepers have been allowed by the Government to be bolted and put into the.lines?-No not under my supervision. I haver never seen it done, I have seen it in the line after it was done. 1394. Where did you see it afterwards ?-I saw some upon the North-Eastern line bolted. 1395. Which section ?-The Seymour section. . 1396. Between Seymour and Benalla ?-No, this way. 1397. From Seymour down towards Melbourne ?-Yes, I think that is where I saw them. 1398. Are stringybark good sleepers ?-Yes, very good. 1399. Are the sleepers usttally preferred in railway construction to any other except red- gum ?-Yes, I believe so. ' 1400. Are they not a sleeper very liable to sUll-crack at the ends ?-They are. 140]. And a sleeper generally allowed to be bolted ?-I do not know about the general allowance. 1402. But they are a sleeper very liable to sun-cracks ?-Yes. . 1403. And stringybark and messmate are the two timbers, as to speak of the Gippsland, district, suitable for railway purposes ?--Yes. 1404. There is no redgum anywhere in·the Gippsland district?-No, very little of it at any rate. 1405. Were any sleepers allowed to be botled upon the' first section, MacNeil and Leggat's section ?-None. . . 1406. Do you of your own knowledge know anything [tbout sleepers rejected for so called fungus?-Yes. . , , 1407. What 'vas' this so 'called fungus; was it a mushroom ?--No, there was no fungus, it was what we call mill-sweat. 1408. Was it a real proof of rottenness in the timber ?-No ; the best timber will sweat, put it that no air can get between it. 1409. Then if it wail not a sort of Ulushroom, was it not a sort of blue mould ?-Just mouldy. 1410. How many were rejected for this sweat ?-I could not tell the number, but a good many were. 1411. Some were rejected for gum veins, were they not ?-Yes. 1412. Is it a usual cause for the rejection of sleepers in your experience ?-Yes, when the gum veins are too big; they are liable to crack through the gum veins. 1413. "Tere any rejected upon this line where the gum veins were not large?-Yes, a good many. 1414. Are sleepers usually rejected for what is called ~he wane ?-Yes, when they are too much waned. 1415. But a slight wane is usually p:1ssed?-Yes. . 1416. And you have seen sleepers on other portions of the Government railways in the Gippsland line with a wane in the sleeper?-Yes, I have seen it. . . 1417 .. Have you seen any in the Spencer-street station in the new works lately?-No, I have not been there lately. . 1418. After those sleepers-which were of fnll size, as you say, and good and sound, without sap-had been rejected by Mr. Styles, did Mr .. Lunt come upon the scene ?-Yes, he once came there along with Mr. Styles. . 1419. And'what did he do?-We passed a lot ofthem in. 1420. 'Were those sleepenl rejected first of all upon the line, or before they were put upon the line ?-Those were rejected before they were put on: . 1421. And afterwards allowed to go on ?-Yes. 1422. Did this Mr. Styles take any uniform method of dealing with your timber in the way of sleepers, and giving his approval; that is, did he uniformly approve of the timber before it went _upon the earthworks ?-No. . 1423. Did he sometimes approve of it before it went upon the earthworks and sometImes 'when it was put on, and sometimes when it haclbeen fixed for some days ?-Very often after some days 1424. Had he a regular method about his work ?-No; I saw no regular method. 1425. Or did he go about his work in. a style of a man who does not know much of what he is about ?-I should not like to express an opinion about the way a mtLn goes about his work. 1426. They were matters of fact"; it is not wise to press you, but you do not like to give too free an opinion, do you ?-Yes, I do. 45 1427. Well, then, how did Mr. Styles usually behave in this matter?'-- Peter IIIlller, rontinued, The Committee objected to this question. 22nd ,Tan. 1880. The lVitness.-I mean to say I am not afraid of expressing my opllllOn. 1428. By j}I,.. Vale.-W as his conduct that of a man doing his business in a regular straiO"htforward way?--He did not do it the way I shoulll have done it. o 1429. Did he do it in the way Government inspectors generally do their work ?-No, he did not. 1430. By tIl(] Committee.-What do you mean by "He did not" ?-You could not ever make sure whether he would condemn or not. 1431. Always a glorious uncertainty about him ?-Yes. 1432. Diu he reject sleepers that were afterwards accepted by Mr. Lunt ?-1 never saw Mr. Lunt going either to condemn or accept sleepers except upon that one particular occasion. 1433. Upon that occasion did Mr. Lunt pass sleepers that had been rejected before by Mr. Styles? - Yes, he did upon that particular occasion. • 1434. ByiVfr. Vale.-In acldition, I believe, to taking part in the §lleeper work under con- strnction, you made the staging and other timber work for the stone-crushers 7--1 did. 1435. 'Vas there a large amount of work done then ?-Yes, the whole staging was fixed. 1436. Were the crushers fixed ?-The crushers fixed and working 1437. Had you any opportunity of forming an opinion upon the way it was sought to forue Mr. Leggat to work thatqu:1rry of Mr. Gibb's ?-No, I had not. 1438. You were not in the quarry much ?-No, I just erected the machinery. 1439. You did erect the plant ?-Yes. . 1440. Will you describe the plant that was erected at Gibb's quarry, the sheds, the build ings, the engines, and the traJll~n,y ?-There was a blacksmith's shop, the office, and the pile staging; piles driyen for six crushers, the stationer¥ engine I did. 1441. By the Committee.-What size ?-I think from 20 to 25 horse power, if I recollect ariO"ht; and another piece of machinery for pulling the trucks up out of the quarry on the end of O the platform, that was working the quarry to. bring the stone out. 1442. vVas it a port:1ble engine ?-No, a stationery engine. , 1443. Had it a Cornish boiler?-There was a patent winch wrought ofl' the engine to pull the trucks up out of the quarry, that is aU the machinery. 1444. A tramway?-A tramway, and water laid on. . 1445. What length of tramway ?-I think a quarter of a mile. 1446. How far was the ",'uter brought ?-The water was brought about u mile. . 1447. By what means ?-We put a pumping engine in the.creek, and sent it up through a pipe. 1448. Two pipes to a shoot ?-Pipes to the tank upon the works. We forced it from the creek to the tanks upon the works. 1449. What do you estimate the value of the whole plant to be ?-1 could not put an estimate upon it. I never thought of it. 1450. By Mr. Vale.-You are speaking simply of Gibb's quarry at present?-Yes, that is all. 1451. You had some experience upon this section as to the longitudinal sleeper business. You saw it done ?-Yes, I did. 1452. Do you thirik it was calculated to. damage the sleepers that were used for longitudinal sleepers ?-The sleepers lay so long upon the top of the other sleepers in the sun and wind that it had the effect that a great many had to co.me out. They were sound when they went in. 1453. It caused a great deal of wo.rk in moving sleepers upon the line?-Yes, taking them back and forwards. 14M. And lifting the line to take out the longitudinal sleepers after the permanent sleepers were fixed ?-Yes. . 1455. Did those longitudinal sleepers tend to. damage the bank by creating, as it were, a. permanent drain along the earthwork ?-That is my opinion. 1456. You have been lately along the Dunolly and St. Arnaud line?-Yes. 1457. Did you see the contl'act?-Yes. . 1458. Did the contract proviqe that longitudinal sleepers should be used?-Yes. 1459. And they commenced to use them, did they no.t ?-Yes. 1460. And you represented that they were calcul:1ted to injure the line ?-Yes. 1461. And what did the engineer in charge do ?-Stopped it. 1462. And he allowed the permanent way to be laid upon the earthworks, and the trains to be run t1.Iong it?-Yes. 1463. And then when the ballast was shot between the rails, the rails. and sleepers fixed to. them were lifted to. let the necessary quantity of ballast to go under the sleepers. to make the line complete ?-Yes. 1464. Do you consider that the sy'stem of laying down 10I)gitudinal sleepers is injurious to the line ?-It is my own private opinion that it is. It leaves a drain along the earth work. [A mudel slimving this method qf com,truction mas produced and explained to the Committee.] 1465. You· see the height there of the top of the rail ?-Yes. 1466. Is th~~t the height to which the rail was raised ?-The rail was only raised 4~ inches that is, a sleeper under the other slecpers. ; 1467. Would the nature of the earthwork in different railway lines necessitate the use Df 10ngitudina1 sleepers; is there any difference between the earthworks of the Gippsland and those of the Dunolly line ?-In the sort of earth? . 46 p,eteriMiller,! 1468. Yes--;-in.the description:.of-.the.,eadhwork was there any speciality in that line thM 211~~~:.:.t~B!lr. requ~red. the. laying of the longi~udinal sleepe~'t3 ?--:'l'here ds no difference that I can' see. My opmlOn is stlll the same as to laymg the road down m that way .. '!..'iflis::d 469: [WouHLit, have been' as safe and· effective toJay down the sleepers. upon the earthwork then as it was in the case you' have· mentioned ?~Yes; just the'same. I·have done just the same.:' .;lOU ti;l4'i:Q;t·rBy-:Mim .. Vale;~Asla:.matter.of..fa~tJlaying, -the. sleepers transversely upon the line gLves:,theygreatestnbearing-uponLthe.earthwork;:and so, tends to scatter the weight and do the least damage to the line ?-Yes. . 1471. The laying of longitudinal sleepers is: calculated to send the earth down the side of thetlbank is .it.not?...... :..Yes. . ,...... ; , . 14'i\2: .. ,B.eside:ml.l!king the trench,·.which ought.itself to.do harm?'7-Yes. .., . •'llu '{IJH73tl,And::then taking! them out would. do. more dama~e, because you would have to use a leverage to get them up ?-You could get them 0ut·with.a piCk.' .. -DOD 1&4,74'. Then !'lthe ! longitudinal sleeper business is no' benefit to. the ,Government' and is a . damage to the' contractor ?-:-:-Yes; that is·.my .opinion:· . '. "'.' ::. '~.' .u~:dr47;5. By the·:Committee.7"7'Are there rother circumstances under which, in- your opinion, as a practical man, it would 'bemecessary; .0r,.anLimprovement.to·use longitudinal sleepers ?-None that! I,can see; it is a disadvantage, I think. . 1476. By Mr. Vale. -In fact. thelighter:.the soil.,the greater the danger and disadvantage of using longituginal.sleepers, ;becauseJlit:~ends.so mnchsa;nd.and earth"down.each side ?-Yes. 1477: Upon the Dunolly and St. Arnaud line yon had the passing of sleepers for the contractor ?;-Yes.: : . -sJjr\, ~lM78;!'HowJmany did you· pass ?-Forty thonsandor 50,000 .. 1479. After you passed them what.~as·ttheavera.ge percentage rejected by the Government. upoii;the liriti ?-, ..N ery small·indeed. , '. ." .. ... ,.'. J(} .L~ a 1480.1 C~n .. y.ou say what you :mean, by .:very small.?"..... Not over two .and a half; . ." .: • ,; 1481. Do you know of YOUll. own :knowledge whether any special kind of sleepers !Werel specified in particular quantities in. that contract ?-I could. not tell exactly. i. ' '. EJH.j 'cil482:,1.Y ou ,dorlllot:. know ?.:7:-Yes,; Ldo-!mow,. but I do not think it. would .be' right for me to tell all I know. . ; §tIr. Vale called the attention of .the committee to the danger to the inquiry arising from the presence in the room of rail way officials, and 0bjected'.specially .to the presence. of\ Mr;.Singleton. Mr. Billing pointed But that Mr. Singleton was necessary to him in. the. conduct of the case. lr;'~I.d.Mr. JVale ·said, that he felt·.that ev:ery,witness whom he called -who was a working. man would be a marked man in the Railway Department. Ot: . .. c. 1483. Mr. Singleton.--:-He does not know me; he has never seen me in:his life.-~To the mitnessJ-Do you know who I am ?-Oh! yes, I know who you are very welL, . !.i,Je\ !fL~'·:·-'·r507. How ml.rch'?·~'One,andsixpenceto the rod-tc)'.prit up-: ~;. "';'j £::7. .·":i,,;l . 1525. And the ,·raihi"tliat· were taken 'out of·the rejected mile were adzed down to that ,shatpel?--LlJ'.hey:iwer'ecn6t1adze'd down;"." ,'" It k. ',' ,', ,.,', ,"A'" " '(" I: ,',." I.' . I ' j 1526. None of the rails were adzed ?-Yes, plenty of them had to be adzed down when l they weretJ0'i'il~li:ick~;:libiit"not :these tii:ils' that"I speak' of'now/ for f supplied new rails. : .. I · .,. t. oCT [.152:7 :,Iilhi rough post and rail fence did the department' insist lipon the 'rails being adzed down to a certain size ?-Yes ; they made the thick ones as near as possible the same thickness as the thin ones-took splinters off.: :',. ", ; ,., ~ I·':! . '", '. ';"'; :: , 1528. Is that:usual'upon other lines ?-I never saw it. '"1,, ., , ,,,' : " . 1529. By the Committee~-:::.!rheY' !ne-ifer insisted ~pon tpeir\~eingplanedwith' a' plane ?-No. 1530. By Mr. Vale.-Did you evel!.kiJ.6w it since orlbefore riporiia bush fence ?-No. 1531. Not even upon:thelast.line you·were·on.~~No; :lllj' ,'J ",:':' " ,80 '1-]15'321.T1·(})3;n~ .you:)teH;rhsl'anyfhing:'niore about tlHil'coIi.tract; ifl.yoti can .we :shall be very glad .f()1.!lYO\l.lt'6lteU'the 0oilimitte~·?...::0Nti; I'have llethingto··teill.' . f.'! I",,,, !!..,'.:.,;" \".; 1" .', • i ~ ; 1 • " t 1 'I ' ~ . I I' • , , • ", ~t'".:,;.,', ',' '-'1 ''''-', '.~ ,·9rqss:-~x.almined by Mr. Billiry.g., . I 1533. You sayj~hat~plenty!ofithese rails!'aIid,thiitgswere adzed~', '. 'WhO .was ·the. inspector at that time ?-A man0Itamed-Mr.1Cardy;.-" ; ... ", '. I. '.; . " _ 'il ' 1, \' 'I< C. '.' , I (I< ~ 1, :-1 534!!;You 'liavei sa:id c'here'lthat upon the Dunollyr line thete,were not· more .than 2~ half per cent. of the sleepers rejected ?-I believe not. . ". ' h):J2fHf ,lr53u'. riWleIiern;etrhll, th'e'~s'leepers'tipon that line redgum, ?~NO.·l·. 'l ,:,.':1 .~,' . . 1536. 'Were not a great part of them redgum ?-Half of them were. 1537. Were there not more ?-I do not think there were. " tCJl\'ir f]J;lt538~lri~ou;lhav:e lalso l'eter .~1iI1er, 1548. Do you know it sufficiently well, because you may be only spcaking from information 22n';fT:n~880: or memory?-1 have never been there except the three years I was there. . 1549. Did you never cut sleepers there ?-No. 1550. This plant at Gibb's quarry you have given us a description of. Did you yourself erect it, or were you engaged in erecting some of it?-Yes. 1551. Were you the sole person there, or ~\Yere there others assisting you ?-Others were assisting me. 1552. Acting under you ?-Yes, of course. I could not do it all yourself. 1553. How many of those inspectors were there altogether. .You have mentioned Mr. Lunt, Mr. Dynon, and Mr. CtLrdy 1-1 did not mention :fi'lr. Dynon. . 1554. No, a previous witness did. You know Mr. Dynon? -I know him. . 1555. What others were there at that time ?~Mr. Scott, Mr. Mine, Mr. Cardy, Mr. Kerr, .Mr. Ch;trk, and another one or two Ido not remember. 1556. You have mentioned Mr. Styles ?-Yes, Mr. Styles. Re-examined by Mr. Vale . ., 1557. Is it not a fact that the redgum at Dandenongis short, rotten at the stump, rotten at the trunk, and only suitable for firewood ?-There is none to get sleepers for a railway. 1558. It is only suitable for firewood ?-'-There is a little good wood there. 1559. There is no forest there like what there is at Echuca of timber suitable for railways? The witness withdrew. James Darling, J ames Darling, examined. 22nd .fan. 1880. 1560. By Mr.·Vale.-What are yon?-A mason. 1561. How long were you employed upon MacNeil and Leggat's contract upon the Gippsland line ?-Fifteen months. 1562. From what period to what period ?-From the 22nd June to September. . 1563. June 1876 to September 1877?-Yes. . 1564. Had yon previously been engaged on other Government contracts ?-Yes. 1565. What were they?-The North-Eastern, first and third sections. . . 1566. Who were the contractors ?-The first section Leggat, and on the third Cain, Holtom, and Dalrymple. . . . 1567. On the first section you were forwarding material ?-Yes, foreman mason . . 1568. Upon t.he contract had you an opportunity 'of observing the class of sleepers upon the line ?-Yes. 1569. Will you describe them ?-They were mainly redgum sleepers. 1570. What did you do under Mr. Leggat ?-Foreman mason principally . ., 1571. Anything else ?-On' which ]ine, on the North-Eastern line? 1572; No, upon this line ?-Forwarding material. . 1573. Where were your duties performed ?-At Spencer':'street. 1574. And as forwarding the material to' Mr. Leggat, did you inspect the sleepers?-Yes. . 1575. ,Vhat do you mean by "inspect "-did you measure ?-:-I measured every one of them. Practically I measured them all. . 1576. You saw whether they were 8 feet 6 inches long, and 9 inches by 4! inches ?-Yes. 1577. Was it your cnstoni to reject all below that?-Everything to within the eighth'ofan inch. I let them go if they were an eighth inch under size, if a good sleep~r. 1578. And you had a copy ofthe specifications to guide you ?-Always. '1579. How many sleepers do you think you passed for this contract ?-About 32,000 I passed, and I sent. them 4.0,000 altogether from Melbounie. . . 1580. The rejects went back ?:-No; Mr. Hutton, the Government Inspector in town, passed the remainder. . 1581. Mr. Hutton took your place ?-Yes. 1582. Out of the 32,000 you passed, have you any idea of the proportion rejected as unfit to go in'to the li.ne ?-By me? . . 1583. No, by Government ?-No, I have no Idea. They were out upon the Ime then.. 1584. You do not know the proportion rejected of those passed by Hutton ?-No. 1585. :From whom did t.he sleepers come ?-Blair and McGrowther, of Echuca; Barber, of Echuca; Wallis, of Seymour; Patterson, I think, of Benalla, but I could not be positive about it ; and from Qui.ggin, from Bass river; and Cooke, of Melbourne. 1586. Did the persons who were snpplying Mr. Leggat with sleepers complain that you were too strict in your supervision ?-Yes, they would not supply any more. 1587. Was that the complaint of one contractor for sleepers, or general ?-Three or four of them. 1588. Did you have any conversat.ion with Hutton, the Government man appointed?-Yes. 1589. What did he say to you ?-He said he would have passed many of them. 1590. Was he passi.ng sleepers at that time for any other Government work ?-Yes. 1591. For whom ?-:-Overend and Robb. 1592. For which line ?-Hamilton and Portland. 1593. Were they redgum sleepers for t?is line passed also by Mr. Hutton?-Yes. 49 1~94. Did h~ s~y,;ai~ything-'aboutrtho_se :redgum'slegp~.t:~;il!l his:iIlstrl,rct~ons ?'--He !;laid he "~~ti~" wou-1ckbennore 'parblcl)larr.-w1.th :them ,than he was for Ov~r!'l':1~:J:.and'Robb. : He had peen tol.d ·to be so. 2!1d\Jan. 18&. 1595. Wei'e the sleepers that Hutton passed, wlthm your own knowledg~,- ,suppbed, by-;~J1e" same parties 'as-those who supplied J\lIr. Leggat ?-The very same. - " ." ; 1596. Did );ou pay a visit'to the Colac liue whil~ that work was in progr~ss ?-Yes. 1597. Which section did you ,take particular notIce of?~The second'sectIOn. '1598. W4o.se w:a~ it ~-Thom~s 'and o-re~nlaw'_s .. '. '_ I. '." , 1599. Did you go over Dverend and Robb's?-Yes, a,portio_n.9fit., .1 ,,: ' ~, . ":1600. Did YOH'notil'Je thesleepe:rs upon, Thomas's section ?~Y ~s.... _, • 1601. Were 'they better sleepers than those rejected upon Leggat's contraptXl~9~' ,1-'. c c, .r"I<;';l''JlQO~Wel·e they, as· good.:~s, thos~.r;ej~QteQ llpon )\~F" L.~gg!!-t's contI:apt, ~:p.l).t)s, the ordinary' run of Thomas's sleepers upon the Colac hne ?-J\wt gm)J.!!-X. . -_ ',.. ; ;;) J ,j; "Ii.'. j", :·1603'.-"Anq·they are in the group-d now,:I suppose?-Yes.' . 16.04. And can be examined ?-And can be examined. 16.05. And they will show only fair wear andtear:,?-:-Tliat is all., . . <, ,..-16Q6>·Nowiab·out the,North-Ea,ster-n'line.:"What.class or'sleepers were used on the second and third sections where you had experience there ?....:.Redgum...... : 16.07. Were the redgum sleepers all better·upon'the average than the average rejected upon Leggat's contract ?-Just about the same. 16.08. Was it the custom upon the two sections of;;th~"N or'~4-Eas~ern' lige, -as far ~s you saw, to gauge every sleeper?..:...No.· 16.09. Was that system adopted upon Legga,t's 'contract ?-~ believe"so. , ,', ..; 161.0. Had"you'any ~ppoi'tu,nitY-'of s~eingit upon thy No~th:-East~r.n li,n~ ?-Xes, daily . .. r:.(f": l6lL There-was, n'o'mSI)ectlOn there_ thattwould' gnable _them to reJ~ct a sleeper quarter of an-inch·toowide.or too nart:ow?-No; I never,saw it. , 1612. Did you ever see any sleeper upon thei Colac line that had the wane in it?"'-Ye~,' ~., great number. , • . 1613. Any overlength you saw tliem as you passed ?~Yes. \, ... 1~n ~" Wh~t .w01.l1d,you' estiP't8:te tnat?verlengi:ho:fsome o'fthose sleepers to be?~ Up to 6 inches or 8 inches~ , , ;, _, 1615. Was that at all fi:equent?-Yes. . c ~"-'" "l6'i6. • Were "many· of thein' sl£u-cracked ?~Yes'; "'. 1617. Were the sleepers, bolted ?-No. . 1618. Were any"of thoi5e sleepers! cut upon the quarter upon the Co]ac line, either npon Overend's;contract or Thomas's ?-Yes, a great many .. ," " 16'19: Will youdescrihe' to tlie Committee 'what you mean by "cut upon the quarter'J·"?.::.tl..~ Yes.-[The mitness explained his meanin,f/ by means qf a model already produced.] ,.: - IG2Q. Instead of the heart running the'whole length of the timbe'r it, so to speak, slants. In your experience is that any detriment to the sleeper ?--No. ' _ _ 1~21. Apd'yet that was the. reason of rejection of the \lleepers under MI'. Leggat ?~Yesf!'·1 , 1622::; And s,\lll' cra~ks le,s's· in extent th.aJf you s~w' up~m the Colac line ?-Yes. : 'f .1623 .. And tho'se sun cracks were upon the Colac line nearer to the 'final acceptance of the line by Government ?-Yes. . " 1624. You went over the line before the line was finished ?-Yes.'" . ~ 16~5. Of course that wa~ befo~e the.fi.n!.t}a~ceptanc,~ or the line ?-:-Y e~ .. " ,,' __ ,' C .. I ", 1.626., Upon the Oolae hue WIll you tell· the. CommIttee :whether the sleepers w~re{ laId duect U1)011 the eartbvorks; will you illustrate by that model hOw they were laid ?-They were laid right down upon the formation. _ " v- . -, l?¥\A,ng,.ovei: that ;the truck~ wen~ w.it~ th,e ball~~t ?'-I saw: from siXteen t~ .t~e~ty.:.:.!l\ I 'could not exactly say how many. ~rucl~s of ral1w~YID3:tt;mal-:-:-:-standmg upon the raIls.JVIthollF_ any ballast at all. They stood there durmg the hohday hme. . 1628. Which holiday?-Christmas 1876. . . 1629. And they were resting the~e during the holidays ?-They stood there for days. . 163.0. By the Committee.-Before the ballast was put on ?-Without any ballast at all. 1631. By Mr. Vale.-And how far was that line laid-as far as you could observe ahead of the ballasting?-Half a mile. . . 1632. And then, when the ballast was put on, the sleepers had to be lifted up with the weIght of the ballast upon them, to let the ballast get under them ?-Yes. , 1 ~33. Later on, I think, you visited the line when it got about six miles from Colae ?~Yes. \ , '1634. What course were they' taking then ?-Just the' same. They were ballasting then without any longitudinal sleepers. 1635. And without logs ?-And without 100's. 1'636. And how 'long 'from the first visit w:!:l tlHtt?-Six' months. . 1637; What is th: distinction between logs, and longitudinal sleepers. Is· it not that the logs are coarse tImber never,lllte,n?e~ ~o be us~d for ~leepers, but are used for the same purpose?-Yes . . 1638. Are they not more l1kely to make irregular indentations in the earth than sleepers? -Yes. 1639. They are worse?-Yes. 164.0. They woul~ tear up the earth more than sleepers would?...:-Yes. they would. 1641. Do youthmk that the laying of longitudiual sleepers is more likely to' injure the earthwork than the other plan ?-Yes. 1642. It throws the e~rth· down-on each side ?-YQs. MBs. LEOGAI'. G 50 Jlm •• parlliig,· 1643. You visited, a few specimens of qUliU'ries; at Birregurra ?.:.:... Yes. . ;2n~~~8s0. 1644. Are they not two miles north of 'the railway, upon' a hill ?-':"No, they are only 'about a mile, or three quarters of a mile. 1645. Will you describe those quarries. Is the stone irregular and shaky?-Yes. 1646. 'And mixed?-Yes. " 1647. In ·eachof the three holes that have been opened? -Yes. 1648. There is one where part of the staging was left when you were there last ?-Yes, it was at full work when I was there last. 1649. Does not the earth round here and the quarries indicate that very little was left to spoil ?-Very little. , : 1650. In those quarries you saw the meti loading'the carts to take the stone to the crushers. Did they use forks or spades ?-They used shovels. . 1651. Did you ever know forks to be used to load stone to take down to the crushers except at Wilson's ?-No. 1652. Did you ever hear it spoken Of except there ?-No. 1653. I believe you were in the quarry when the forks were used at Wilson's ?-Orrce or twice only. 1654. You did not see much about it ?-No. 1655. You noticed the spoil.bank at Birregurra ?-Yes. 1656. What did it consist of?-:-Black loam. 1657. With any metal or traces of stone in it ;-Very little. 1658. In either '0 the three ?-Very litHe. 1659.' And there was hardly any refuse even where the crushers were ?-No. 1660. The staging of the crushers being still there?-It was at full work when I was there. 1661. Which is th~ best stone; the average stone from Gibb's quarry or the stone you saw beirig taken out of the quarries at Birregurra ?-Gibb's stone. Cross-examined by Mr. Billing. 1662. How long were you employed there ?-About fifteen months. 1663. Upon the contract about fifteen months. How long had Mr. Leggat the contract altogether ?-I began in June 1876. 1664. When did you examine the Birregurra quarries, and other quarries that you have spoken of. Was it to give evidence here that you examined them ?-No. . 1665. When did you examine them; is it long ago ?-Yes, it was in 1877. 1666. I do not exactly understand what you mean, that you were a mason under Mr. Leggitt forwarding material; what do' you mean by forwarding material ?-I was employed by Mr. Leggatt to pass the sleepers at Spencer street. ' 16,67. You are his son-in-law, are you not ?-No ; no relation. 1668. To send up sleepers. I want to know what you were. What do you mean by for- warding IJ?aterial ?-:-All sorts of material-sleepers, posts and rails, and all.sorts. 1669. How long was Mr. Hutton employed; he succeeded you, you know?-I could not say. 1670. You say that 32,000 were passed by you ?:-Somewhere about that. 1671. Then you say that Mr. Hutton passed others, and you say he was appointed by the Government ?-Yes. 1672. How long was Mi.. Hutton acting?-It might be two months or three months; he was perhaps two hours one day, and may be an hour the next day. . ' 1673. The drift of my question is this-- ?-I want to explain this; because when I say it was extended over a period of two months, he was employed an hour or two honrs some days, and some days he was not there at all. ' , 1Q74. Yon have given evidence about different lines-the North-Eastern aid the Colo:c line. Were you in any way employed yourself upon the Colac line ?-No. 1675. How did you come to inspect it ; you have given some minute evidence about it?- I went to have a look at it. 1676. When did you go ?-I went at Christmas 1876. 1677. Did you go over much of it?-Yes. 1678. You did?-Yes. 1679. Were they: at work at that time?--Not at Christmas 1876. 1680. Then you did not see any of the operations being done; you only saw them after it, was done ?-Not at that time. , ,J681.Whell did you go again ?:-I visited it six months after that, and I saw it in operation theil. 1682. At any time did you see the liDe in operation ?-Yes. _1683. Now the North-Eastern line, did you examine that?-Casually, yes. I was upon the line about three veal's. 1684. Were yon there when it was being constructed ?--Yes. 1685. BYI tlte Committee.--You wete employed upon that line ?-Yes. 1686. "'ylYIr. Billing.-Did not Mr. Leggat ever find fault with you or make complaint of your not haviug exercised proper supervision over any of the work 1-Not to my knowledge. 1687. :N ot t.he timber?-Not to my knowledge. 1688. You never heard of it?-No. The witne8S withdrew. Adjourned to' Tue8day next at eleven o'clock. 51 TUESDAY, 27TH JANUARY 1880. M embers present: MR. N UIMO in the Chair i, Mr. Fineham, , Mr. A. K. Smith. Mr. Bell, Mr. Billmq applied for an adjournment of the case until Mr. Watson's return from Tasmania, on the 'ground that Mr. Watson's health was at present too infirm to permit of the sifting of the case, to which he was a material witn~ss. .., Mr. Vale said that he would ask the Commlttee to sUITgest that the mqUlry be contmued by a Royal Commission in case the House should rise before the conclusion of the evidence. M1'. Billing pointed out that this was not a matter in the hands of the Committee, and tendered the eviuence of Mr. James to prove the state of Mr. Watson's health. ~f1'. Vale stated that last week Mr. Watson was present, and tendered himself for exami nation, and objected to the course proposed by Mr. Billing, as that would give the Crown some weeks to prepare nn answer to Mrs. Leggat's case. , The Ohai1'man said that the facts disclosed by Mr. Vale's statement tended to rebut the application of Mr. Billing. Mr. Billing stated that when Mr. Watson came to consult with the Crown ,Solicitor in order to instruct counsel for the Crown, his health was found to be so delicate that he could not go on. Mr. Vale renewed his suggestion, that if Dr. James's evidence supported Mr. Billing's statement, the Committee should ask the Government to make the members of this Committee into a Royal Commission to continue this inqniry, and that in the meantime the Committee should not ask that Mrs. Ijeggat's case should be further disclosed at present. ' The Chairman stated that any questions the Committee would have to ask of Mr. Watson would be very short, and that if Mr. Watson was well enough last week to go about the ordinary business of life, he was well enough to answer such questions as the Committee would put, unless some very extraordinary change had taken place in his health since that time. . Mr. Billing stated that the examination of Mr. Watson for the Crown would involve a long and intricate inquiry into complex matters, he having been the chief actor in the transactions now being inqnired into, and that when the attempt had been made by the Crown Solicitor to ascertain the nature of Mr. Watson's evidence upon these things, it was found that his health would not permit him to give the information. The Committee deliberated. The Chairman stated that the Committee were of opinion that all the evidence that could be tendered l)y Mr. Watson is already in existence in the notices he had served and the letters he had writte.!l and replies made to applications, and if those required to be supplemented in any way, the gentleman next in authority to him could give the explanations necessary, Mr. Watson beside him to as!;ist him at any time in the explanations, but that the Committee could not see its way to consent to adjourn the proceedings at this stage. Mr. Billing said that it was ~ot the case that any person could supply the lack of Mr. Watson's evidence, and that the letters referred to did not contain full statements of the facts. Roderick Alison Sutherland, examined. R. A. Sutherland. ,1tIlJ&II.11!811. 1689. By the Committee.-You are solicitor for the Victorian Railways? - One of the solicitors. , 1690. By Mr. Rillin,q.-You know Mr. Watson. Will you detail the facts about him, please ?-Yes. On Friday last, I asked Mr. Watson to come, to my office to go through the case with me. We were tOITether, I suppose about an hour and a half, and we merely got to what we may :lonsider the threshold of the case, as far as he was concerned, when I saw by his appearance that he would not be able to give the case ~he attention which it deserved. I saw that he was suffering, and asked him what was the matter with him; he said he was perfectly tired out, and could not go on any further. "Well," I said, "this is very unsatisfactory to me, because I have to get the case ready, and work it up for counsel"; and I then asked who was his medical attendant, and he said" Dr. James." I then said, " I will go over with you, and see whether he will give me a report upon your state," because, though 1 could judge as an ordinary person, of course I am not a. medical man, and I could not decide. He appeared to me to be physically unfit, but I wanted to get the opinion of his medical man. I went over with him to Dr. James, and I explained to Dr. James the purpose for which I requil'f'd Mr. Wu,tson and that he (Watson) would have to give his evidence. Dr. James stuted that, whatever was the consequence, he would neither allow him to go into the case with me, or give evidence before the Committee. I told him to come here this morning at ] 1 o'clock, to state so to the Committee. I may add, that I consider, as the profes!;ional adviser of' the Board of Land and Works in this case, that I cannot safely go on in Mr. Watson's absence. I stake my professional reputation upon it. ] 691. fly the Commitlt-e.-How do you kllow that this gentleman was not confronted with difficulties conllected with this cltsethut he could not get over, except by concedinlT what was demanded hy Mrs. IJeggat ?-l have not gOlle sufficiently into the case with Mr. Wats~n to know exactly whut he mill ~ay upon ~he difl'ercl.lt points:-mel'ely casually.: as I said, we \yere merely upon the t.hreshold of It. We diU not get mto details. 1 took the eVidence, as far as It went and then he wus obliged to giv~ up. , " ". . I 52 Jl. A, Suthcrlft'1(l, 1692. He could not get ,into'details'?L:.:.:No. :;"i< \ 'T , . ' ' . 27t~~':;I~~~et8so, 1693. Was he unable or unwilling to go into details? -N0, not unwilling i when he was with me be appeared physically unable to go into details ;' that is all I can say about it. 1694. By Mr. Vale.-I should not feel justi£edron ,hehalf of the pet.itioner, in allowing' the case to go on withou~ 'Mr: Wat~on 'being examined, because I "Qelieve Mr, ,Watson would confirm her case, and therefore I should ask the Oommit~e to let Mr. 1Vatson be examined. I call the at.tention of the COlllmittee to th~ fact that the Railway Department. knew, as far back. as DecefnMf! 1878, 'that tl\.ereVwtl~S'lil{elY 'to be' arCinquiry;"and that when the' notice of1motion was giv8n%h:i eh•• ~" '1vjf!' BiZtinfFs'aid li'e \htSV~l;rdesirous to 'lu1.ve Dr. 'Janies's'evidence, ~i.s he did llotwlsh aiff statement of his own to be taJcen dow:t;t, except UpOll the evidence of Dr. Janu'is. " .'..,. ~)IiJ ',;Tlw '(JoTtiinittee intimatea that if 1\:1r: Watsoll'\vas to beexchsecl; no'fm'ther evid;mc~'should he taken on either side in his absence. HI ',:" I};.T{J.~j Billin/pstatea ·th'at if\vatd'oi: that v()ry l'eason'tJ1at he had made the applicatloh. at t,lV~ v'tli'Y beginliihglOf'this 'sitting; instead of a:t the close of Mrs. Leggat's case; " " " The Chait'man. -There has been H witness for the petitioner, who has been brought down frorr{ PaJreiHia,In "'W'J, sljeak' iconcerni'llgthe qlia'rries, and it"had be~n sl'iggested' that' he' should be"eiainined n'o~t't'daV6id;Hiin'sog'l;eat"a"distf\,nce'a se~ond'till1e. '; ,', ,:';, , I:' ,·:h!'·,!;J'l 71:1: Tr '1 l' t 1 "' _. ~l .) f,\\.,:,: . L. ""lJ':Ir: ra,e o)J'ec ec.' . .. .!.! :~" .:', ::"'~:d E. ll. JU111CS, ::' ;;.. , ~Edw~rd M~.·Ja,nles; }1.R.C:S., Eng., exttnliriecL , M,u.n'S·l}::ng.~ 27th ,Tnn, I RSO. l::;::.,:16~5.:By' the Commuttee.-We,. ~;ave been informed, that Mr. Watson, is, not ab~e,to;,g'i;~r evidence ?-..:Mr. Wat~onrather vexed me ,the.other day. He told me he had been coming'.up her~ the other day, and, wanted to give evidence, and he did it without my kno"'ledge, because, 'although he is getting"well, any thing, of., that kind wouldpnt him back again, and I k"Lke Mr. Watson with, me to Tasmania' myself. OIl purpose. ' He could not go by himself. I believe he will ,be all right' wh~n~h~, comes,bac~:agfl.in; but ~ slwnld be yery ~orry to see anything to retard ,his recovery,; in' fact, I could not permit it in my professional capacity; but he is doing very well, and :will: be-I thoroughly well if the enquiry could be postponed in any way. He will be peJ;'fectly well I. believe itt 'a,month, but at ,present.r could uot sanction it because his conditioJ;l is such; he lias been very v,:~r}: '~s:riQusJy ill,. hut. 1 am glad to ;sa,y he will ,ge,t· perfectly well; but 'at present· he has:.gone:! thro,ngh s~l(:h, llt, str~ill of pain fo1', such a length, of: tillle that I dare riot permit any mental. stra-i:tl:1 l\tJJle preS\lllt tim,e, o~', el,s(;), dowQ"tlW, thing )Vo,ulq go. again.,· .,,::, " I, ,:, \ 'I},;{ "'~: '''i' 169,6.:It is, a' se:r:i9,US ll1!1tter to' ,postpone the ',Oommittee ,; but, we m'e, glad to.. have :youJ~! evideIlce that it is indispensable ?-I would per;J;l1it ,it if I considered that life would'llo,t. JJ.c; el~~angered 1:lY so doing; .r would do it in a moment. ' .i: ",:, ,'{'" Tlte witness' withdrew. ' !... ' Mr. Vale renewed his reqllest that the COhmiittee;would con'sider the propriety of making ," , t!le.sl!-gg,estionto the Government·that the ,GO.q:lI!l,~t~ee be. tm;,ned into\a Com,mission, agd that the Commission should meet n.s soon as Mr. 1Vatsoll returned from Tasmania." >I~ ..,:' , ,,,":lvIr;,,Bilting.--Ofcourse L,hay~, no authorityt9;,sp,eak in' this matter;' ,,' ." ' :: 'r', "The,'oMirman stated that t4e, Oommittee.,:w9~lld "probably' brillg up~a,ProgressReport'r:thi~, evening, stating the facts that had al'isen this, morning... . ; ,~,,; :' I, ,.~,.' , ,'"'''' ',ft ;'1 . , L .. ",' " 'L, 'Lf' ,', .,"'.' • '1 .'.~ :" .: ,; . ~ \ ~ t j ',:;' ", ):P: '1;( t~ , .'.I! , . ";.J By Authority: JOI1N }<'.IU