The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1886-08-18

only six feet into the soft bed of the
river, and show no indications of
having been so hard that it was diff
cult 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 subsoil
of the river bottom; neither did the
heads of the piles, which had been
sawed off, show the bruised or shat
tered effects which must have been
the results of being ''well driven"
by the pile driver, weighing 1880
pounds, called for by the contract.
The freshet which carried away
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 car
ried away, even though the water
did not reach the bridge chords.
From these facts, and the addi-
tional facts ascertained by your
committee, relating to the rebuild
ing of the same bridge, to the effect
that it was found practical and
necessary to drive the piles in the
new work from II to IL feet into
the bed of the river, your commit
tee are satisfied that the contract
with James G.. Hayselden for the
building of the Waimea bridge has
not been carried out according to
the terms thereof, and that in con-
sequence of such incomplete and
careless performance, the public
treasury has suffered heavy losses,
far beyond the balance inserted in
the Appropriation Bill as due the
said estate on the said contract.
Your committee, therefore, recon-
mend that the said item Of So, 1921
be struck out of the Appropriation
Bill. We feel that such action is
the more appropriate from the fact
that said contractor sublet or as
signed the contract to the Pacific
Bridge Company for $4,000, the
contract price being SID 800, where
by large profits will be realized by
his estate if the full amount called
for by the contract is paid, in ex-
change for which the Government
has received from him no personal
service, and yet in spite of the said
assignment of the contract, the said
contractor could not have thereby
shifted his responsibility for the
proper performance of the contract.
Second-In regard to the Wailua
bridge, your committee have not
been able to obtain as definite in
formation as they have wished in
regard to the causes which led to
the destruction of the bridge shortly
after it was finished, a freshet in
the river being the immediate
cause. From what your committee
have been able to learn, they
are satisfied that the bridge was
not placed high enough; there,
however, is no requirement in
the contract as to the height Of
bridge from the water. Under these
circumstances, the contractors should
have ascertained from residents the
highest known rise of the river and
have placed the bridge out of reach
of a repetition thereof. On the occa-
sion of the destruction of the bridge,
the water reached the bridge chords
and then the bridge gave way. We
have also been informed that one of
the iron cylinders forming part of
one of the piers of the bridge proved
too short to reach to the hard bot
tom of the river, and the contrac-
tors, instead of frightening it, left
it standing in the mud and went on
with their work, using it as a sup
port as if it was satisfactorily sta
toned, and that this effectively
stationed pier contributed to the
destruction of the bridge. We were
not able to verify this information
relating to the defective construction
of the Wailua bridge, but mention
as explaining the otherwise unac-
countable destruction of this work
so soon after it was completed.
Such destruction alone, without
satisfactory explanation, in our
minds condemns the work as defec-
tive, and would justify the Govern
ment in refusing the balance of the
contract sum. The explanation,
which is given above, does not clear
the contractor from blame, and il
taken as true, would justify the
Government in refusing further
payment. With these remarks we
refer the mater of the item for the
Wailua bridge back to the Assem-.
bly, for consideration.
In the matter of the Wailua bridge
we learn that the contract, which
was for SIT, 800, was sublet or as
signed to the Pacific Bridge Com
pany for a much smaller sum thu
same remarks apply to this circum
stance as in the case of the Waime,
bridge.
In caca aithar of tho cold tom