The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-08-18

referred to committee 10 find whether
was detective or not. 1t i pretty Ion
bill and rather complicated. lie moved
be referred 10 the Committee on Commerce
as it could not be corrected after il ha
been engrossed.
His Excellency IIr. Creighton said tina
he did not object to the bill being referre
to a committee, only the committee shout
be instructed TO report at certain time.
Mr.. Dole thought Monday next would b
time enough.
His EXcellency Mr.. Creighton SAID h
I hoped Mr.. Dole would accept THURSDAY O
/ this week as an amendment.
Mr.. Dole accepted the amendment anC
the bill was referred to the Committee OF
Commerce with instructions To report I,
the House Oh Thursday
MINORITY REPORT ON wAIMEA AND wALUA
BRIDGES.
Mr.. Dole presented the following mi
nority report:
Hon. J. :. Walker, President Legisla-
tive Assembly-Sir: Your committee APP
pointed 10 consider the items of s., 123 q
and 81 ,554 78 in the Appropriation bill on
account OF the balance due the estate of J
q. Hayselden on the contracts for the
Waimea and Wailua bridges, on the island
OF Kauai, respectfully offer the following
minority report: First, III regard to the
Waimea bridge, your committee find that
whereas the contract calls for piles averag-
ing 20 feet in length, and requires that
such piles be well driven" as Il matter OF
fact, not one of p piles. which were re-
IL,
and repaired. and one pile which was
washed away and afterwards picked UP
on the beach when the bridge was partially
destroyed by a freShet, reach a length of
Il feet, and barely average Is feet in length,
one or two being only Il feet in length
The requirements of the contract, that the
piles be well driven does not appear to
have been carried out, for they had been
driven only six feet into the soft bed of the
river and show no indications of having
been driven SO hard that it was difficult
to drive them further; none of the piles
examined by the contractor for rebuilding
the bridge had iron points, and yet none
were bruised or blunted at the point. As
would have been the case had they been
well driven into the hard subsOil of the
river bottom; neither did the heads of
the piles which had been sawed Off show
the bruised or shattered effects which must
have been the results of being well
driven" by the pile driver, weighing 800
pounds, called for by the contract The
freshet which carried away "A part of the
bridge washed away five feet of the depth
of the mud of the river bottom, leaving
only one foot of the length of the piles fixed !
in the mud. The natural result was that |
the bridge was partially carried away, |
even though the water did not reach the !
bridge chords. From these facts, and the |
additional facts ascertained by your com |
uittee, relating TO the rebuilding of the |
same bridge, to the effect that it was found !
practical and necessary to drive the piles |
in the new work from - to Il feet into the |
bed of the river, your committee are salts
fed that the contract with James g. Hay /
selden for the building of the Waimea |
bridge has not been carried out according /
to the terms thereof, and that in conse- !
lUence of such incomplete and careless
the public treasury has suf-
cred heavy losses, far beyond the balance
Inserted in the Appropriation bill as due
he said estate on the said contract.
Your committee, therefore, recon-
mend that the said item of 81, l23 p be
struck out of the Appropriation bill. We
eel that such action is the more
appropriate from the fact that said con-
ractor sublet or assigned the contract to
he Pacific Bridge Company for So, 300,
he contract price being Sl4 800, whereby
arge profits will be realized by his estate if
he full amount called for by the contract
5 paid, in exchange for which the Govern
nent has received from him no personal
ervice, and yet i'll spite of the said as
ignment of the contract, the said con-
ractor could not have thereby shifted his
for the proper performance
# the contract.
Second-In regard to the Wailua bridge,
our committee have not been able to OBJ
ain as definite information as they have
he destruction of the bridge shortly after
was finished, freshet in the river being
he immediate cause. From what your
Ommittee have been able to learn, they
re satisfied that the bridge was not placed
Ugh enough there, however, is no re-
uirement in the contract as to the height
bridge from the water Under these
circumstances, the contractors should have
scerteined from residents the highest
nown rise of the river and have placed the
ridge out of reach of a repetition thereof.
N the occasion of the destruction of the
ridge, the water reached the bridge
hords and then the bridge gave way.
We have also been informed that one of the
on cylinders forming part OF one of
ne piers OF the bridge proved too short to
each to the hard bottom of the river, and
ne contractors, instead of lengthening it,
1T it standing in the mud and went on
18th their work, using it as a support as if
was satisfactorily stationed, and that
his effectively stationed pier contributed
} the destruction of the bridge. We were
OF able to verify this Information relating
} the detective construction of the Wal
Ia bridge. but mention as explaining the
therwiSe unaccountable destruction of
lis work 50 soon after it was completed.
uch destruction alone, without salts
.ctory explanation, in our minds con-
ennis the work a defective, and would
lstlfy the Government in refusing the
llance of the contract sum. The ex-