IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

12.8

m m 12.2

■ 2.0

Photographic

Sciences
Corporatton

23 WfST MAIN STRUT

WiBSTIR.N.Y. 14SM

(716)S72 4S03

<^.

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVI/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical IV/licroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes tachnique* at bibliographiquaa

Tha inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat
original copy avallabia for filming. Faaturoa of thia
copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua,
which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha
reproduction, or which may significantly change
tha usual method of filming, are checked below.

Coloured covers/
2L\ Couverture de coulaur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagte

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurte et/ou pelliculte

Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

Coloured maps/

Cartea gAographiquas en couleur

□ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or iiiuatrations/

Planches et/ou illustrationa en couleur

Bound with other material/
Reli6 avac d'autraa documents

Tight binding may cnuse shadows or diatortion
along interior margin/

Lareliure aerrte paut cauaar de I'ombre ou de la
diatortion le long de la marge intArieure

Blank iaavaa added during reatoration may
appear within the text. Whenever poasible, theae
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certainea pagea blanches aJoutAea
lore d'une reatauration apparaissent dana le texte,
mala, lorsque cela italt poasible, ces pages n'ont
pea AtA f ilmtes.

Additional comments:/
Commentairea supplAmentaires:

L'Institut a microfiimA la meiileur exemplaire
qu'il lui a AtA possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du
point de vua bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
una image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mAthoda normale de filmage
sont indiquAs ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pagea/

D
D

Pagea de couleur

Pagea damaged/
Pages endommagtea

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurAea et/ou pelliculAes

Pagea discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pagea dAcoiorAas, tachetAes ou piqui

Pagea dAcoiorAas, tachetAes ou piqutes

Pagea

Pages dAtachtes

Showthrough>
Transparence

Quality of prim

Quality inAgale de I'impression.

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du mfttAriel aupplAmantaira

I I Pagea detached/

r7\ Showthrough/

I ' Quality of print varies/

I I Includea aupplementary material/

s
T

e
b
ri
r<
n

Only edition available/
Seule Mition di^ponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pagea totalament ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont At* fiimAea * nouveau da fa9on i
obtenir la meilleure image poaaibla.

Thia item is fiSmed at the re(*uction ratio checked below/

Ce document est film* au taux da riduetlon indiqu* ci-dasaoua

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

12X

1IX

20X

a4x

32X

The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thenkt
to the generoeity of:

Librery of the Public
Archives of Ceneda

The images appeering here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed peper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ► (meening "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too lerge to be
entirely included In one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'exemplaire filmA f ut reproduit grAce k Is
gAnirositA de:

La bibliothAque des Archives
publiques du Canada

Les images suivantes ont tt6 reproduitas avec Is
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la conditioii et
de la nettet« de l'exemplaire fiim«, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont ia couverture en
pepier est imprimte sent filmte en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniire pege qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par l« second
plat, salon le ess. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sent film6s en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symholes suivants apparaftra sur la
dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le
cas: le symbols -^' signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols ▼ signifie "FIN".

Les certes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre
filncte i des taux de rMuction diffArents.
Lorsque le document est trop graiad pour Atre
reproduit en un seul ciichA. 11 est film* i partir
de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mAthode.

■

]

REPLY TO A PAMPHLET,

I'l ULISHKI) HY

WM. HY. SCOVIL, ESQUIKE,

PURPORTING TO CONTAIN A

CORRESI^ONDENCIi:

BETWEEN HIM

AND

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETAKY,

RELATIVE TO THE ALLEGED LOSS

SUSTAINED BY THE PROYINCE

ONE THOUSAND TONS OF IRON,

IMPOiCTED THROUGH MESSRS. NaYLOH & CO.,

In 185 7.

SATNT JOHN, N. B.
PRINTED IIY BARNES AND COMPANY,

6(5 IMUNCK AVILI.IAM STHr.^T.

1859.

•'■■< ^ .y. -p^i^^itV^'.

^Hiife.'

-<^" ■;^:':r,;.

REPLY TO A TAMPHLET,

puni-isiiEn lU'

WM. HY. SCOVIL, ESQUIRE,

I'URPORTINO TO CONTAIN A

conRESF^oisrDicisrcji:

BETWEEN HIM

AND

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

RELATIVi* TO THK ALLEGED LOSS

SUSTAINED BY THE PROVINCE

ONE THOUSAND TONS OF IRON,

IMl'ORTED THROUGH MESSEvS. NAYLOR & CO.,

In 185 7.

SAINT JOHN, N. B.
PRINTED BY BARNES AND COMPANY,

0(5 rniNCE william stkekt.
1859.

Wm.

liavin
pond(
statCB
the 21
incur]
RailA*
on pe
and 1
volvir
adopt
any e
Tl
portk
cere i
not ft
Wi
in ful
been
each ;
as it <

1
"I

Repo
spicec

JBarii

£2,0(

cxpla

" To til

day (

TO THE PUBLIC.

\Vm. Hy. Scovil, Esquire, late Chairman of the Railway Board,
having published a Pamphlet, purporting to be a copy of corres-
pondence between that Gentleman and myself, arising out of a
statement made by me in my place in the House of Assembly, on
the 29th March, 1858, to the eflFect, that the Commissioners had
incurred a loss of £2000 by mismanagement in the purchase of
Railway iron from Messrs. Naylor & Co., of Liverpool ; and finding
on perusal, that a part of that correspondence has been omitted,
and that it is accompanied by certain notes and comments in-
volving unfairly drawn inferences, I am compelled in self-defence to
adopt the present means of supplying such omissions, and correcting
any erroneous impression that may have thereby been produced.

The manifestation of unpleasant feeling which pervades certain
portions of Mr. Scovil's letters and notes, is to me a source of sin-
cere regret, and as I am not actuated by similar feelings, I will
not further notice this matter.

With the assurance, that if the coiTespondence had been given
in full, without any notes, comments or omissions, I would have
been perfectly satisfied to have left the issue with the judgment of
each individual reader, I now proceed to give the correspondence
as it occurred.

[Extract from Letter, dated Saint John, N. B., iTth April, 1868.]
" I find under date of 29th March, at page 79 of the Official
Reports of the House of Assembly, the following sentence in a
spicech of yours, viz :

" * The late Commissioners had not bought iron through Messrs.
Barings, but through a firm, Naylor & Co., by which they lost
£2,000 by mismanagement!

" I cannot understand how this can be ; will you oblige me by
explaining how this loss occurred. Your early reply will oblige,

" Yours, &c.,

«WM.HY. SCOVIL.

" To the Hon. 8. L. Tnimr."

" Fredericton, 14th April, 1858.

" Sir — Your letter of 7th instant, reached mo at Saint John a
day or two sinc6, and I now hasten to reply thereto. Tlie loss of

t*-J,OUU rotcri'oil to, Hi)pi.'ur» to have been uccasioiietl in the I'ollow-

{

uii; nninner

Tlio lute Commissioners agreed with Messrs. Naylor «fc Co. to
furnish a certain <|uantity of Iron Rails, agreeable to certain plans
and speeitications, and at a certain price. When these Kails were
received in New Drnnswick, it was found that they were not nianu-
factured in accordance with such regulations, and the present Com-
missioners refused to ])ay the amount claimed by Messrs. Naylor &
Co. Mr. Light's certificate, now in the office of the Commissioners,
shews that the Kails received are not worth as nmch by il2,000 as
they would have been, had the exact specification been complied
witli. On the Commissioners' demanding a reduction of the above
amount, they produced the agreement, which shewed tliatthe Kails
had been approved of by the person employed by them to inspect
them ; and the Solicitor General gave it as his opinion that, under
that agreement, the Commissioners were bound to pay the claim.
"■ The condiUotis then, vjhich jwovided that the Inspection of these
Mails should he made hij a person aiipointed hy Messrs. Naylor &
Co., led to the loss, certijied hi/ Mr. Liyht, to he i!2,000. It was on
these fads that I felt myself authorised to state what I did upon
the subject.

" Yours, kc, " S. L. TILLEY .

" To W. 11. Scovii., Esq., St. Jolin."

"St. John, N. B., 2Sth April, 1858.

" SiH: — I received your favour of 1 4th inst., in due course, and
knowing you were absent, have delayed writing until now.

" You refer me to a certificate of Mr. Light's, respecting the
Kails imported from Naylor <k Co. ; will you furnish me a copy of
that certificate, and oblige,

•' Yours, &c.,

" WM. 11 Y. SCOVIL.

•' The Hon. S. L. TittBY."

" FiiEDERicTON, 4th Mav, 1858.
" Sir — In a conversation with Mr. Jardine on the 14th ult.,
relative to a certificate referred to, he said you could see it at the
office if you desired to do so.

" If you prefer a copy of the certificate, 1 will apply to him for it.

" Yours, &c.,

" S. L. TILLEY.

" W. II, SCOVIL, Esq."

" Sr. Joim, N. B., 18th Mav, 1858.
" Sir — I received yimr note of the 4th inst. I 'pr<'f'i' h copy of
Mr. Light's certificate. If you will furnish me one, you will oblige,

" Yours, (fee,

" WM. HY. SCOYIL.

"The Hon. S. L. Tillpv, Preilericton."

i," FhlViTH.")

" FuEUKKiciox, Mav "JTiIi, IbiiH.

" Beak Sir — I now t'oiw arc! you a copy of Mr. Lii>;ht's eertificate.
1 scnclit to you for your personal information, and ilo not wish its
contents made public, without first obtaininLj the consent of tlio
Government to such a course. 1 suppose that the present permis-
sion will answer your purpose.

" Yours truly,

" S. L. TILLEY.

" W. II. ScoviL, Esq., St. Jolin."

(copy.)

"European and Noiitii Amekioax Railwav,
Ewjineer's Otjice, 30th Nov. 1857.

" RODEUT Jardinb, Esq.,

Chief Commissioner of Railvrays.

" Sin — I have carefully examined the Iron Rails delivered by the
' Favourite' and the ' Middlcton,' and am sorry to bo obliged to
report that they are very badly rolled indeed. Many of the bars
arc ^ of an inch larger on the base than the pattern sent, and an
Cfjually large number |- of an inch smaller, entirely precluding the
possibility of the Hail making a proper fit in the cliair. The ends
of the bars ar ; likewise very carelessly sawn ofi', many of them being
full f of an inch off the plumb, so that if the ends of two of these
Hails are laid together, there would be a V or vacant space of ^ of
an inch at eitlier the top or bottom of the joint, as the case may be,
and this is quite connnon. The tops of the Rails are likewise not
of the same size, and very many of those already delivered, arc odd
Icngtlis other tlian those specified.

" We have laid about an half mile of the iron brought by tlic
' Favourite,' and although we have taken unusual care to nuitch the
Rails, and have rejected a largo number as unfit to lay at all with
the present fastenings ; we have yet found it almost impossible to
lay a perfect track with them, the sizes of the Rails being so un-
even. I liavG no hesitation in saying that, taking the iron as a
whole, I consider it the very w-orst specimen of rolling I have seen.
1 have as yet had no opportunity of tcstiny the quality, but if Mr.
ReciVs surmise be true, vis., that the manufacturers have put the best
portion of the pile in the base of (he Rail, this will have the effect
of rcdueiny the tiltimate durability of the iron very materially.
Assuming the cost of the iron in England to be £8 5s. per ton,
and adding the commissions, freights, insurance, &c., as well as
the carriage to the works in this country, I conceive that this iron,
when laid down upon the road, is actually worth at least £2 per
ton less than good iron made exactly in accordance with the pat-
terns and specifications, and the best part of the jjile laid, where it
ought to be, viz., in the top or bearing surface of the Rails.
" ' am, Sir, yours, kc,

. ■ '' ALEX. L. LIGHT,

•' Enirineor."

! «7

"Saint John, N. B., Oil June, 1858.

** Sir — Your note of 27th ult., inclosing copy of Mr. Light's cer-
tiHcato or report on the Kails imported in 1867, 1 have received.
I'his (lofniinent docs not contain the information I expected, nor
does it establish the charfje made by you against the late Railway
Board. As I am not likely to receive any further light on this
subject, or do I require any more to refute the charge made by
you, I will now do so.

" Your charge teas, that the late Commissioners^ hy their mis-
management^ caused a loss to the Province of £2,000 on an imjtor-
tation of Railway iron. On seeing this charge in the published
reports, I applied to you for an explanation, you referred me to Mr.
Light's report, and from that report I learn that he makes up the
sum of £2,000, by valuing the iron at £2 per ton less than it cost,
thus fixing the quantity of iron at 1,000 tons. You also, in your
letter of 14th April, after referring me to Mr. Light's certificate,
say, the conditions then that provided that the inspection of those
Bails should be made hy a person appointed by Messrs. JVaylor <&
Co.^ led to the loss certified by Mr. Light to be £2,000. Tliere were
no such conditions made by the Board of which I was a- member.
The order of Messrs. Naylors was for 700 tons of Rails, and ex-
pressly provided for an inspector, to be appointed by the Railway
iioard. In absence of an inspector from that Board, Messrs. Nay-
lor were to employ one, who could be superseded at any time by
an inspector from the Board. These were the conditions on which
the order was sent to Messrs. Naylors. A small portion, about
100 tons (of the 700 tons of Rails ordered) were made, when Mr.
Reed, a member of the new Board, arrixid in England, and visited
the works, and the additional 300 tons were, I suppose, ordered by
tiie new Board. These being the facts, I think you have failed in
o«tal)lishing the charge of loss and mismanagement made by you
vgainst the old Railway Board.

" Awaiting your reply, I am, yours, &c.,

"AVM.IIY.SCOVIL.

" Hon. S. L. TiLLBY, Frederlcton."

" Fredeiuctok, 29th Ju>:e, 1858.
" Sir — On my return from Canada, a few days ago, I received
your letter of 3d instan<^ relative to the Provincial loss on Railway
Iron, and in reply thereto, I beg to state that I difl^er trom you rela-
tive to some important facts of the case, and entirely dissent from
the co!iclusions to which you would appear to have arrived.
" The facts and arguments maybe briefly and truthfully stated thus:
" 1. The late Railway Board commission c'l. Messrs. Naylor & Co.,
of Boston, to import 700 tons of Railway Iron, of special dimensions
and quality, and partially agreed for 300 tons in addition. This is
established by the letter of Messrs. Naylor &, Co. to you, of date
22d June, 1857. The present Board, immediately after taking
office, perfected your previous arrangement, by ordering the ad-
ditional 300 tons ; not, however, because you had spoken of them.

■«^

Iway
this

3 by

or partially agreed for them, but f*>r that reason as well as because
it was represented to them that the iron wouhl be necessary.

" 2. Under these orders, 1,000 tons of iron were im])orted,and aa
Mr. Light, the Chief Engineer, lias officially represented that the iron,
owing to defects, is not worth the price agreed for by .€2 per ton,
the loss to the Province is, on official evidence, one of £2,000.

" 3. In duo course, Messrs. Naylor <fe Co. demanded payment, and
on the present Board representing to them the inferiority and defects
of the Rails, Messrs. Naylor & Co., writing to Mr. Jardine, under
date of 6th December, 1857, say — 'We must disclaim any respon-

* sibility whatever in regard to the same, as according to contract

* made with us by your predecessor, Mr. Scovil, it was most clearly
' agreed that the decision of the Inspector was to be final.'

"4. I have not before mo yourlettcr of June 3d, 1857, which or-
(Ired the iron, but on turning to Messrs. Naylor & Co.'s recital of it
in their letter to you of 22d June, which in your letter to them of
27th June, you admit to be correct, except as to the place of inspec-
tion, which you there say must be at the works, and not at the place
of shipment, I find it distinctly stated that the inspection is to bo
final, and the Inspector is to be appointed by the Liverpool House
of Naylor & Co., and to act under their direction, you merely re-
serving the right to supersede him by one of your own appointment,
should yoa see fit to do so.

" 5. From the facts, that you arranged for a final inspection of
the Rails by an officer appointed by the shippers, unless you saw fit
to supersede him by an appointment of your own ; that you made
no such appointment, and that the defects in the Rails were not
discovered until they were being landed, I think it incontrovertibly
follows that the responsibility of the Province being deprived of a
right of re-survey, and being consequently subjected to the loss of
£2,000 on these Rails, devolves on the late Board, who provided
for the final inspection.

" 6. I note your argument, that Mr. Reed was in England be-
fore the order was executed by shipment of the iron, but I scarcely
think it necessary to suggest to your intelligence that neither Mr.
Reed, nor any other Commissioner, casually visiting England, though
engaged in other Railway negotiations, would thin^^ himself called
on to interfere with contracts made by his predecess fs on this side
the Atlantic, and which were being executed by a highly respectable
House in England, and under special inspection.

" 7. Hoping these statements will prove satisfactory,

" I am, yours, «fec., « S. L. TILLEY.

"W.H. Scovil."

The two following Letters were furnished Mr. Scovil, by his

request :

" Boston, June 22, 1857.

" Menrs. Rsilway Commissioners, Saint John,
" W. U. SooviL, Esq., Ohairman.

" Dbar Sir — We have the pleasure to acknowledge the receipt
of your esteemed favor of 3d inst., and have to thank you for the

1 I-

\ I

oLiiijini*' order for 700 tons of iron rails contained therein, wliicii
order with the wood pattern subsequently received, luivc oeen for-
warded to our Liverpool House, Messrs. Naylor, Yickers <fc (.'o., at
whose handr, they will command the most careful attention. The
shipments will be made as nearly as possible to your requirements,
thoi.jfh we beg to suggest the probability of no considerable quantity,
perhaps none can be got ready as early as August, as rolls must be
specially prepared for your Rails, the pattern being i. peculiar one.

" We note the alteration proposed by you in regard to the terms
of payment, to which, although less acceptable to us than those
previously named, we shall not hesitate to conform.

" We understand that in accordance with your letter, and with
the verbal arrangement made with you at Saint John by our Mr.
Huntingdon, the Hails are to be inspected before shipment, on your
account and at your expense, which inspection is to be final ; the
inspector to be appointed by our Liverpool house, and to act under
their directions, you reserving the rifjkt to siipersede him at any
time by one of your oton appointment, should yon sec fiit to do so.

" We are glad to learn tiirough Mr. Huntingdon that you pro-
bably will soon place a further order in our hands for r.bout 300
tons of Rails, to be shipped tlie present season, and we cannot but
hope that our attention to both these orders will be such as to
secure for us the privilege of being the medium of supply for future
and still larger quantities.

" Respectfully tendering to you our best services, and those of our
Liverpool House, for the transaction of any business in this country
or Great Britain, to which you may require attention, and begging
your acknowledgment of the receipt of tliis communication, we are

" Yours, &c.,

« NAYLOR & CO.

" P. S. — Your message by telegraph came duly to hand advising
us that a change had been made in the model of the rails to be
used. "N. & CO."

Railway Commissionkks' Office,

St. John, 21 th June, 1857.
" Messrs, Naylor & Co., Eoston.

" Gentlemen — ^Your favour of 22d instant has been received and
contents noted, which are in accordance with former letters, and
conversations with your Mr. Huntingdon, excepting the inspection,
which you state to be done before shipment. The inspection must
be done at the works as the Rails arc manufactured. A portion of
this shipment will be required soon, and I hope a portion of it wMl
be shipped in August. " Yours, &c.,

"WM. HY. SCOVIL,
" Chairman, Raihvay Board."

"St. John, N. B., 18th August, 1858.
" Sir — I am in receipt «>f your note of 3d instant, with enclo-
sures. There is nothino; in these letters of 22d and 2'7th June

that alter the facts as stated in my letter to you of 3d June. Mr.
Huntingdon, a partner of the firm of Naylor &, Co., was at St. John
in May, 1857. At that time 1000 tons were named as the probable
quantity of Kails that would be required that season.

*' Before the order was sent to Messrs. Naylor tfc Co., the subject
was brought before the Board, when it was decided that 700 tons
were sufficient until more could be imported in Spring of 1858, and
700 tons only were ordered ; and of this 700 tons, about 100 tons
were manufactured when a member of the new Railway Board ar-
rived in England, and it appears (^from the Chief Engineer's Re-
port) that this gentleman was of the opinion that the manufac-
turers were not doing justice in the manufacture of the Rails. Not-
Avithstanding this they were allowed to continue the manufacture
of them, without an inspector from the Railway Board, although
this waf? expressly stipulated aud provided for by the former Board,
and not only so, but the present Board gave them a further order
for 300 tons more Rails.

" With all these facts before you, you in your letter of 29th June
attempt to justify the correctness of the charge made by you, viz. :
* That the former Board by their mismanagement caused a loss to
*the Province of ^'2,000 by an importation of Railway iron,' when
you knew that this sum was made up by estimating the value of
1000 tons of Rails, at £2 per ton less than it cost ; and you also
knew of this 1000 tons of Rails, 300 tons were ordered by the
present Board, and 600 tons more were manufactured under their
supervision.

" I enclose a copy of a letter from Messrs. Naylor, Viciers & Co.,
of Liverpool, dated Dec. 18, 1857, addressed to Mr. Reed, as Rail-
way Cojnmissioner, for your perusal.

" I am. Sir, vours, <tc.,

WM. in'. SCOVIL.

" The Hon, S. L. Tu.lkv, Fiodericton."

"Liverpool, Dec. 18, 1857.

"KoBERT Rbkd, Esq.,

Railway Couimisfcioner of the Proviuce of New Brunswick, at Liverpool.

"Deah Sir — We have duly received the report of Alex. L
Light respecting the Rails supplied by us as per our contract with
the Railway Commissioners, bearing date June and SepUmhcr,
1857.

"Although by the express stipulations contained in that contract,
our responsibility ceases with the inspection at the works, and we
are not bound to notice or entertain any complaints made subse-
quently, nevertheless, act of courtesy to you and your brother Com-
missioners, with whom oiu* business relations hitherto have been of
the most satisfactory and straightforward charccter, we proceed at
once to investigate the merits of the sweeping charges brought
against the quality, regularity and finish of the Rails.

"1. As regards the charge that there is a variation of ^ of an
itich in the width of the flange, and also in the tops of some of the
2

ilails, wp will merely say that ^ nearer appvoach to uniformity is
impracticable, and that a thousand tons of Kails, or one hundred
for that matter, never were or never will bo rolled without more or
less variation.

" 2. The ends of the Rails are said to be unevenly sawn off, and
on enquiry of the manufacturer, we learn that some of the largest
Rails might possibly be a little oif the sqnare, but not sufficiently
so to interfere with a close fitting, provided a little extra care was
taken to attain that object. We may however state that the Rails
in this country are generally roughly filer' at the ends where there
is any of the irregularity complained of.

" 3. With respect to the rolling and general finish of the Rails,
independently of their being inspected by one of the best men in
tho trade, you had every opportunity given you of insperirf^ them
both at the works and when in course of shipment here. And as far
as our experience goes we may safely assert that we never saw a
better article sent out from this port.

" We must enter our protest against the delay and inconvenience
we arc experiencing in not being put in funds in accordance with
the terms of the contract. We have submitted without a word of
complaint to the loss inflicted upon us by the strict interpretation
the Commissioners have exacted from us in respect to the rate of
interest to be allowed on our cash advances. Wo contended that
6 per cent, was named at the time the contract was made, simply
because it was the then Bank of England rate, and that we were
entitled to a corresponding advance if that institution raised its
rates, but we at once conceded this point when you referred to the
contract, and exacted a literal compliance therewith. We claim
the same compliance on behalf of yourself and the other Commis-
sioners, and beg you will take immediate steps to place us in funds
for the balance of our account, with Bank of England rate of interest
added from the 14th inst, the date we ought to have received tho
remittance, until we are in funds.

" NAYLOR, VICKERS & CO."

"Secretary's Office,

FrederictoUj ^th September, 1858.

"Sir — After having written to you on 29th June, and agreeably
to the request in your note of 29th July, sent you a copy of Messrs.
Naylor & Co.'s letter to you of 2 2d June, and of your reply thereto
of 27th June, I have now to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of 18th August, which I have carefully perused, touching the loss
on Railway iron. I remain of opinion that my letter of 29th June
contains a more correct recital and better arrangement, of the facts
of the case, and decidedly more valid conclusions than are to be
found in your letter of 18th ultimo.

*^rln my letter of 29th June, I noted and answered your argu-

■m

ineni as to Mr. lieecVs Iteing in Kuglaiid, wlien, as you say, only
about 100 tons of Rails had been manufactured ; and 1 now observe
that in connection with a repetition of the same argument, you add,

* that it appears from the Chief Engineer's Report that Mr. Reed was

* of opinion that the manufacturers loere not doing justice in the
*■ inanvfaciure of the Rails^ If you substantiate this last assertion of
Mr. Reed's early opinion of the carelessness or injustice of the
manufacturers, I confess you will weaken my conviction that tho
late Board are alone responsible for tho loss in question. I have
however carefully searched all the documents to which I have access,
and find no foundation for your assertion.

" I have received the copy you have sent to me of the letter from
Messrs. Naylor, Vickers & Co. to Mr. Reed, of date 18th December,
1857, but I feel more confidence in the statements and arguments
of the disinterested persons who have seen the Rails landed in the
Province. To enlighten you on this point, I enclose a copy of a
letter dated 11th May, 1858, from Mr. Jardine,the Chairman of the
present Board, to Messrs. Naylor & Co., of Boston, and also of a
letter to Mr. Jardine, dated 10th May, from Mr. Walker, one of the
Contractors who laid the Rails.

" I am Yours, «fcc.,

"S. L. TILLEY.

" Wm. Ht. Scotil, Saint John."

I Thfl two following lettens also furnislied Mr. Scovil, were sup-

prassed by him : —

# <COPY.)

*' Railway Commissioners' Office,

Saint John^ May llth, 1858.

" Dear Sirs — I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of
23d April, in which you inform me that a report had reached you
that dissatisfaction continued to be felt by us with the Rails fur-
nished by your Liverpool House, and stating that if we can make
out a good case, you will present it, and that you hope, from the
high character of the makers, that we will receive justice under
any circumstances.

" You will recollect, that soon after the receipt of the Rails in
question, we sent you certificates as to their character, from Mr,
Light, our Chief Engineer, and from Mr. Fleming, a Founder and
Machinist of standing here. We now enclose copies of these cer-
titicates.

" The Rails have now been laid, which has afforded an oppor-

I tunity of testing the opinion of those who previously inspected

them ; and I now enclose additional certificate from Mr. Light, and

a certificate from Messrs. Walker & Co., the contractor, who laid a

portion of them.

" If this does not satisfy you as to the quality and character of
the Rails furnished by you, I have to request that you will send

'it

b:"

H-' •

some person, or authorise somo person liere to inspect tliera, to
whom I will afford every facility. The IJails will speak for them-
selves.

" I am not aware what more I can do to shew you that your
view was not correct.

" I may mention that we are now receiving Rails of the same
pattern and kind of iron, which are entirely free from the defects
found in yours.

" Perhaps this may be accounted for by the rejections made by
our Inspector, as, for example, out of the first 106 tons, he re-
jected —

For unsoundness,

Bad lengthsj - - -

Bad punching,

To be better squared.

To be re-straigthenedj
And out of 229 tons—

For unsoundness,

Bad lengths, - - -

Bad punching,

To be better squared,

To be re-straightened,

♦' By examining the returns of the Inspector appointed by you,
on the Rails furnished to us, perhaps yon may find the cause of tho
defects, as the evident carelessness of the manufacture, even when
the inspection was so rigid, will account for the state of o;n* Rails,
under an inspection, of which we had no knowledge or controul,
" I am, your obd't. servant,

(Signed) " ROBERT JARDINE.

"To Messrs. NiTLon 4 Co., Boston."

29
20
7
57
41

(COPT.)

" Hammond River, May 10, 1858.

** RoBBRT JAaoiMR, Kgquire,

" Dkar Sir — We have upon one contract here, about three hun-
dred tons of the Rails you imported last fall, and having laid a
large part of these in permanent road, we are able to speak exactly
as to the size and pattern, and the way they arc rolled.

" We find some Rails so wide in the bottom flange, that we have
to cut off a full quarter inch with cold chisel, to allow it to enter
the chair, while as many more are so small as to be quite a quarter
inch loose in the chair, when laid. The Rails thus vary half an
inch in the bottom flange, and are of all widths within that limit,

" In height, the Rails vary one-eighth inch full, so that wh^n
laid, they soon begin to bruise at the end, from waggons passing
over them.

" Besides this, the slotting and sawing are done so irregularly,
that tho expansions cannot bo kept the same ; and the difference
in the width of the bottom flango precluding the possibility of
laying the Rails in the same straight line, or fair at the joints, will

prevent the road, however carefully laid, from being so peifect as
it shouUl be ; and I believe, that in twelve montlis, one half of the
chairs laid will be broken, from their being so bad a fit on the Rail.
" I am. Sir, your obd't. servant,
(Signed) " THOMAS M. WALKER."

"Saint John, N. B., 2d Oct., 1858.

" S/n — I am in receipt of yonr letter of Yth September. In that
letter you charge me with mating rtn assertion without fonndation,
and say ' You have searched all the documents you had access to.'
This extensive search was quite unnecessary, as in my letter I refer
to the document which gave the information. Then why not
examine the document to which I referred ? and if not in it, then
accuse mo with making false statements.

"The letters you enclose have no bearing on the point between
us, as I am not aware of having referred to the quality of the Rails.
All that has been said of them may be true. You say your letter
of 29th June contains a correct recital and better arrangement of
the facts of the case, and decidedly more valid conchisions than are
to be found in my letter of 18th August. • Yours of 29th June may
contain facts, but as you say, they arc arranged facts, any facts that
it may contain are certainly so arranged they are almost invisible.
As this letter is your standard of facts and conclusions, 1 will notice
a few of them. In that letter you say, 'The Railway Board com-
' missioned Naylor & Co. to import 700 tons of Railway iron, and
' partially agreed for 300 tons in addition! The Railway Board
' authorized Naylor & Co., who are Iron Brokers and Commission
Merchants, not manufacturers, to purchase 700 tons only of Rails,
no agreement whatever for any further quantity. This partial agree-
ment for 300 tons in addition, is one of your arranged facts. Yon
aay further, * I find it distinctly stMed the inspection is to be
' final, and the Inspector is to be appointed by the Livei"pool
'house of Naylor <fe Co., and to act under their directions, you
' merely reserving the right to supersede him by one of your own
appointment, should you see fit to do so.' This is yonr version by
: your arrangement of facts. The facts, m<AoM< your arrangementy
< are thus, viz. : The inspection was to be final, but it never was in-
tended that the Inspector appointed by Naylor & Co. was to be a
permanent appointment, as the following extract from the original
order will clearly shew, ' The Hails to helpiode under inspection, in
' absence of anjnspector from this Board, you, to appoint one, who
' may be superseded at any time by one appointed by this Board!
This was Naylor & Go's, authority to employ an Inspector. It is
limited, and distinct! v shows the intention of the Board to appoint
an Inspector, and without a (feVarrangement of facts, will not bear
the construction you would give it. Again you say, 'Mr. Reed,
* nor any other Commissioner casually visiting England, though
' engt^ed in other Railway negotiations, would think himself called
' on to interfere with contracts made by his predecessors on thii

* 8ule the AtlantSc, and which were being uxecutctl by a highly

* respectable house in England, and under special inspection.'
This is all very plausible, but it is not a valid conclusion, as no in-
terference was necessary. All that was required, was to complete
the arrangement made by the former Board by appointing an In-
spector. Had this been done, by your own shewing, i£l800 of the
£2000 would have been saved to the Province, for in your letter of
14th April you say, ' The conditions then that provided tlmt the
inspection of these Rails should he made by a person appointed by
Naylor <& Co^ led to the loss, certified by Mr, Light to be £2000.'
I have already shewn there were no such conditions, except by your
arrangements of foAits to produce your valid conclusions. When I
first called on you for an explanation of your charge against the
former Railway Board, I was then under the impression you be-
lieved the charge correct, I am now of a contra opinion, and I think
this a valid conclusion.

" I am Sir, Yours, &c.,

"WM. HY. SCOVIL.

" Hon. S. L. TiLLBT, Fredericton."

" Fredericton, 12th Oct., 1858.

" Sir — I am in receipt of your letter of 2d inst., apparently in
answer to my letter of 29th June, as well as that of Vth Sept. I
have noted its contcntv°, and in some respects I regret the style in
which it has been conceived.

" There are only two points of which I find it necessary to re-
mind you.

" 1. My information as to the appointment of the Inspector of
the Rails, was derived from the letter of Messrs. Naylor & Co. to
you of date 22d June, and yours to them of the 27th Tune. The
words of Messrs. Naylor & Co. are these : ' We understand that in
' accordance with your letter and the verbal arrangement made with
' you at Saint John by our Mr. Huntingdon, the Rails are to be in-

* spected before shipment, on your account and at your expeuse,

* which inspection is to he final, the inspector to be appointed by our
' Liverpool House, and to act under their direction, you reserving the

* right to supersede him at any time by one of your own appointment,

* should you see fit to do so.' Your answer was in these words :

* Your favor of 22d inst. has been received and contents noted,
*■ which are in accordance with former letters and conversations with
' your Mr. Huntingdon, except the inspection, which must be at the
' works as the Rails are manufactured. A portion of this shipment
*■ will be required soon, and I hope a portion of it will be shipped in

* August.' Note the dates of the letters just quoted, and it becomes
quite clear on whom the responsibility of the inspection arrange-
ment rests, and that had the late Board appointed Mr. Smith, or
some other competent person, as recommended by Mr. Light in his
report of Ist June, 1857, the loss would not have been sustained.
I am happy to find you recognize a plausibility even in Mr. Reed's

position, as alleged by me, but I must repeat that I have not met
the foundation of your assertion, that at Mr. Reed's first visit, he was
of opinion that tiic manufacturers were not doing justice in the ma-
nufactuie of the Kails.

" 2. You emphatically assert that the late Board ordered only
Too tons of Kails, and made no agreement whatever for any further
quantity. In my letter of 25th June, I was quite explicit as to the
manner in which the 300 tons were ordered, and I find no cause
for correction. 13e so good as refer to Messrs. Naylor & Co.'s letter
to you of 22d June, and you will find these words : ' We are glad
to learn, through Mr. Huntingdon, that you will probably, soon
place a further order in our hands for about 300 tons of Rails to
be shipped the present season.' I am justified therefore in what I
said on this head. But admit, for argument sake, that your Board
had made no allusion whatever to any additional quantity of 300
tons of Rails, the loss imputable to the late Board would not be
reducible in proportion, for those Rails were necessarily inspected
tmder your urranr/ement, which the present Board had no oppor-
tunity of testing until the Rails arrived here, when the matter was
past remedy, in consequence of your having agreed that the in-
spection should be final.

" I am yours, &c.,

"8. L. TILLEY.

" W. H. ScoviL, St. John."

Satnt John, N. B., 24th Nov., 1858.

"Sir — I received your letter of 12th October in due course. I
intended my last letter to end this correspondence. It is quite
apparent from your last letter, as it was from previous onea, that
you have no intention of confining yourself to facts. You still
strive to cloak yourself under your arranged facts, and multi-
ply words in support of these imaginary images of your own crea-
ting. Therefore, it is useless to continue this correspondence while
you will persist in this unfair course. As proof of this I will make
one quotation from your last letter. You say, ' My information as
* to the appointment of the Inspector of the Kails was derived from
' the letter of Messrs. Naylor & Co. to you, dated 22d June, and
** yours to them of the 27th idem.^ Confining yourself to those letters
for information, was done inadvertently or intentionally ; if the
former, you have had ample time to correct yourself. Not having
done so, but instead, heaping up words to support your false posi-
tion, shews it was done intentionally, and this is more apparent
when these letters are referred to ; for in Messrs. Naylor & Go's,
letter of 22d June, in the first sentence, they acknowledge my letter
of 3d June. My reply of 27th June refers to previous lettei"s and
conversations. The conversations are of no importance, as neither
the present or former Board, or Messrs. Naylors were bound by any
private conversation between Mr. Huntingdon and myself, further
than are expressed in the letter, which was the result of these con-

vcisations, so far as the Board thought iidvisahle to confirm and
act upon what had passed. And by this letter all were bound.
And you know this letter of 3d June, referred to, contains the
order for the Rails, and the conditions for their inspection. There
is nothing in these subsequent letters of 22d and 27th June to alter
or annul these conditions. This letter of 3d June, you arc still
determined to keep out of sight. 1 say still, as it was not con-
venient for reference when you wrote your letter of better arranged
facts and valid conclusions^ of 29th June last.

"Before closing, I will notice one other remark in vour last let-
ter. You say, 'If the late Board had appointed Mr. Smith, as
' recommended by Mr. Light,' <Src., <fee., &c.

" This is taking up a new point. You have already selected and
assigned your reasons for making the charge of mismanagement
against the former Railway Board, and to these you must confine
yourself, or acknowledge you were wrong, and then I may reply to
the new point you now attempt to introduce.

" However, I do not intend to notice any further communications
from you on this subject, unless you confine yourself to facts.

" I am. Sir) Y«)urs, &c.,

" WM. IIY. SCOVIL.

" Hon S. L. TiLLKT, Freilericton;"

[suppressed by MR. SCOVIL.]

(COPT.)

" Frederictox, 2d Dec, 1858.

"Sir — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the
,24th ult., in answer to mine of the 12th of October.

" Throughout the correspondence that has been carried on be-
tween us since June last, relative to the loss sustained by the Go-
vernment from the defects of the Iron Rails imported for the
European and North American Railway by the late Commissioners,
I have endeavoured to argue the case in a fair and candid manner ;
and in order to sustain my views, I have, on all points, produced
evidence— the authenticity of which has not been questioned —
from the correspondence between the Commissioners, the Con-
tractors, and their Agents; apd I must again repeat that the
opinion I first arrived at, is still retained by me, and that the ar-
guments I have presented are, to my mind, unanswered.

" You now object to my addiicing new evidence in the case, and
state, that in order to sustain my position, I must confine myself to
reasons given in my former communications, or acknowledge that
I was wrong. I was under the impression that our object was to
elicit all the facts of the case, and, as contributing to that end, we
were not to be confined in this correspondence to legal quibbles
and technicalities, and your insisting on such a course, must w^eaken
your position with impartial judges. Be that as it may, I am quite
willing that my case shall rest upon the facts quoted, and the ar-
guments based on them in my letters, without referring to the new

iimcations

point of view introdticcd in my last letter, and now objected to bv
you, as now matter. In any differences of opinion that may arise
between myself and others upon any subject whatever, more espe-
cially those affecting tlie public interests, I hope I shall ever U'
prepared to discuss them calmly and fully, and that I shall never
object to any evidence or argument that may bo brought for-
ward, on the gi'ound that it was not stated in a first letter or speecii
of my opponent.

" As to the extraordinary expressions contained in your letter
now acknowledged, I would remind you that it is generally ad-
mitted, that to lose temper in a controversy, affords tolerable good
evidence of inability to sustain one's position by facts and argu-
ments.

" Time will shew, whether or not you regard this letter as worthy
of an answer.

" I have the honor, <fcc. «fec.,

(Signed) " S. L. TILLEY.

" Wm. Hinry Scotil, Esqu're,

Late Railway Commissioner, te. Ac."

In addition to that part of the correspondence published by Mr.
Scovil, he makes the following statement, as an apology for the
neglect of the Board to appoint the Inspector :

" I will here explain why the late Board did not appoint an In-
spector. When the above order was made, the Board had under
consideration the engagement of Mr. Smith, as Inspector, (who had
been recommended by the Chief Engineer). They did not know
at the time the order was made, if an arrangement could be made
with Mr. Smith to proceed immediately to England, therefore they
provided that an Inspector should be appointed, provisionally, by
Messrs. Naylor, in event of an Inspector from the Board not being
present to take charge at the commencement of the manufacture
of the Rails. A few days after this order was sent, and immediately
after a meeting of the present Government at Fredericton (about
8th June), a member of the Railway Board was informed by a mem-
ber of the present Government, that the then Board would bo
superseded by a new Board. And soon after this, hearing also
from Messrs. Naylor that but a small portion of those Rails, perhaps
none, could be got ready in August, the late Board determined to
leave the appointment of an Inspector with their successors.

" W. H. S.'*

Mr. Scovil's defence, thdil, may be briefly stated as follows : —

First-^That the provisional appointment oif an Inspector by

Messrs. Naylor <fe Co., was suggested by the Board, because they

did not know whether Mr. Smith's serviose* could be immediately

obtained in that capacity.
3

Second — That their declining subsequently to make any appoint-
ment was, because a member of the Government, on or about the
8th June, informed one of the Commissioners that they would be
superseded; and

Third — That notwithstanding they had appointed no Inspector
up to the 14th August — Mr. Reed being in England when but 100
tons of the iron was manufactured, and he not having appointed a
new Inspector, although dissatisfied with the quality of the iron —
the responsibility necessarily falls upon the new Board, of which
Mr. Reed was a member.

I will now proceed to offer some additional remarks, to shew the
untenable nature of each position thus assumed by Mr. Scovil.

With reference to the first position, the natural inference is, that
before placing this power in the hands of Messrs. Naylor & Co., an
effort had been made to secure the services of Mr. Smith; and the
public will, doubtless, be surprised to find by the following corres-
pondence, that such was not the case :

;coPT.')

" Frbdericton, 20th Jan., 1859.

" Sib — In a pamphlet recently issued by Wm. Henry Scovil,
Esquire, containing part of correspondence between us relative to a
loss sustained by the defective character of the Rails ordered by
the Uite Commissioners from Messrs. Naylor & Co., I find he states,
as one of the reasons why an Inspector was not appointed by the
late Board, that they * did not know at the time the order was
'• made, if any arrangement could be made with Mr. Smith to pro-
' ceed immediately to England.' You will oblige me by stating
whether or not Mr. Scovil, or either of the other Commissioners,
made any proposal to you to undertake the service. If so, when
such application was made, and what was the nature of your reply.

" I am, &c.,
(Signed) "S.L.TILLEY.

"T. T. ViOiiOH BlOTB, Esq."

I'l

(COPT.)

" Frbdericton, January 20th, 1859.
" Sir — I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this
date, and in reply, to state that Mr. Scdvil spoke to me about the
usual custom of inspecting Railway Iron at the works during the
process of manufacture, but made no proposition to me on the »ub-
ject, nor, I believe, alluded to my going to England at all.
" I am, Sir, your obdt. servant,

(Signed) « T. T. V. SMITH.

" aoa. d. L. TwuK, Provinoial e«eretar7, Frederioton."

appoint-
bout tho
^ould be

uspcctor
but 100
ointed a
3 iron —
f which

ihew the
)vil.

i is, that

Co., an

and the

I corrcs-

1859.

Y Scovil,
tive to a
lered by
le states,
1 by the
•der was
b to pro-
' stating
issioners,
50, when
ur reply.

LLEY.

1859.

it of tliis

iboat the

iring the

the »ub-

AITR.

III reply to the second point. 1 would ask — Had the notice re-
ferred to been an official letter from the Provincial Secretary to tho
Railway Board, informing them that it was the intention of the
Government to supersede them, instead of an unofficial and un-
authorized intimation by a member of the Government to one of
the members of the Railway Board, as stated by Mr. Scovil,
would even that have been a sufficient apology for their neglect
of a known and acknowledged duty on their part, so long as they
retained the office of Commissioners, and received pay for their
services ? But to shew that Mr. Scovil notwithstanding this inti-
mation, did not feel that he was relieved from tho important duties
of his office, it will only be necessary to state, that between the 8th
June and the 14th August 1857, the Commissioners not only paid
out jff30,000, but also received tenders, and entered into contracts
for the following works, viz. : Construction of the road between the
Nine Mile House and Hampton Ferry, and the Shcdiac Wharf; and
purchased two Locomotives, besides other matters of minor im-
portance, at a prospective cost of over £90,000 ; and even as late as
1st August, took possession of, and recorded the station grounds at
the Mill Pond, and the land for the track between that and Gilbert's
Island. These extensive undertakings being made by the Commis-
sioners between the 8th June and tho 14th August, why did they
not also appoint the Inspector of Rails ? It only involved the out-
lay of some hundred pounds, and it might have been the means of
saving thousands. The recording of the station grounds at so late
a period in their official existence, is especially worthy of note, as it
was an act for which there was no urgent necessity at that time ;
and involving as it did the unalterable adoption of that locality as
the terminal station, was only calculated to embarrass the arranger
ments of their successors.

Tlie third and last argument, is a futile attempt to transfer the
responsibility from the old to the new Board, To shew that such
a transfer cannot be made, it is only necessary to remember, that
Mr. Scovil's order, was for half the iron to be shipped early in
August or before^ and the remainder early in September or the
Vfhole in August ; and that notwithstanding the subsequent corres-
pondence between Messrs. Naylor & Co. and Mr. Scovil, the Com-
missioners could have had no reason for supposing that the whole
shipment would have been delayed beyond the early part of Sept. ;
particularly as Messi-s. Naylor & Co. of Boston, upon the receipt of

Mr. Scuvirb letter of 27tli Juno informed him, under date of lut
July, that thoy liad infornruid thoir Liverpool houRC, that a portion
of the rails would be required at once. It muHt thcrofore be appa-
rent to every person, that the non-appointment of nn Inspector up
to 14th August, must have prevented any Inspector from reaching
the manufactory before the 7th or 8th September, at which time his
sorvices under tlie terms of agrooraent would not have boon required.
The facts of the case do not warrant Mr. Scovil's assertion, that there
was but 100 tons of Kails manufactured on Mr. Heed's arrival in
England, and upon this point Mr. Scovil must have been misin-
formed, as previous to Mr. Reed's leaving tliis Province for England,
105 tons had been shipped per "Favorite," and a few days after
liis arrival at the works, 350 tons more were shipped per " Mid-
dleton." The assumption that Mr. Heed was at that time dis-
satisfied with the character of the iron, is not borne out by any
known &cts, and is completely disproved by his letter, extracts
from which I here subjoin :

"Liverpool, 11th Sept., 1857.

** RoBBRT JARNH, Esquire,

Chairman, Ac, St. John, N. B.

" Dear Sir — Ere this, you will have received Invoice of ship-
ment of 105 tons Rails per 'Favorite,' the lengths are abont equal,
ai feet*8 inchea; ^^^ *^® proportion, as per order, is to be worked out in
shipping the remainder.

" Yesterday I visited the works in Staffordshire, where the Rails
are being manufactured. The works are very extensive, and the
parties engaged seem to be highly respectable, which is some little
guarantee for the delivery of a good article. The Rolls broke n
rew hours before I arrived, and the Inspector left immediately after
the accident, tor London, so that I did not see him. This was mat-
ter of regret ; but, as far as I could judge, the Rails were well
manufactured.

" By Mr. Seely, I send you a print, shewing different sections of
Rails. The Bridge Rail, No. 1, is recommended by the manager
of the establishment in which the New Brunswick Rails are being
manufactured, as superior to the T Rail, for two reasons — one is,
that in the making, the pressure is vertical, by which process the
head is more firmly pressed than the head of the T Bail, which is
pressed sideways, causing the_grain of the iron to be edgeways in-
stead of flat, as in the Bndge l^il. And as they only put a certain
proportion of the very best iron in the Rails usually made, styled
best JRailSy the best is put in the top of the Bridge Rails, which is
the wearing part, whereas in the T Rails they are obliged to put it

ill the tiange, in <oiiHCoiiuiiru ut' that part of the Kail being thin,
uarticularly tlic Saint John pattern, which iii thinner than usual.
Knginecrs, like Doctors, differ in opinion, and no doubt Mr. Light will
like his own getting up best, but it may bo worth while questioning
him upon the matter : it can do no harm, and may do good. It is
said the Bridge Rail is nsed entirely on the Grand Trunk of Canada,
and on the Ht. Andrews and Quebec road.
" Your*, very truly,
(Signed) " ROBERT REED."

The letter of 3d June, which Mr. Scovil charges me with wilfully
withholding, I never saw, until it appeared in his Pamphlet ; but
why he should attach so much importance to it, I cannot under-
stand, as it does not differ materially from the recital of it in Messrs.
Naylor «k Ckj.'s letter of 22d June, a copy of which was furnished
Mr. Scovil by me.

I now give an additional certificate furnished by Mr. Fleming on
the 2l8t December, 1857, in further proof of the imperfect manner
in which the Rails were manufactured.

" Saint John, Deo. 21st, 1857.

" Having been requested by the Chairman of tlie European and
North American R&ilway Board, to examine and rcpoit upon a
(juality of Rails landing from the Packet Ship 'Imperial,' at Law-
ton's wharf, I have to state, that having examined and compared
upwards of one hundred Rails, with a pattern furnished by A.
Light, Esq., Chief Engineer, I found them generally from one-six-
teenth to one-eighth of an inch higher, from one-sixteenth to one-
eighth of an inch wider on the top, and from one-sixteenth to
three-eighths of an inch narrower on the bottom than the aforesaid
pattern, and that none of them were of the same size. I found,
besides, that not over one-third were of any one pattern in height
and in width across top and bottom, and that about two-thirds
varied, each Rail from the other, from one-sixteenth to an eighth
of an inch. I also found several of them defective, presenting an
appearance as if there was a deficiency of metal, when passing
through the rollers, leaving them ragged on the edge.
" Respectfully submitted.

(Signed) " GEO. FLEMING."

I think I have clearly established the defective character of the
Rails ; that the Commissioners did not take the necessary steps to
secure Mr. Smith's services, or appoint some other Inspector, as
recommended by Mr. Light ; that they, having entered into large
contracts, and incurred heavy expenditures subsequent to their

ifl

^ tj

order to Messrs. Naylor & Co., ^ere not justified in declining to
appoint the Inspector for the reasons assigned ; that an Inspector,
appointed by the Board here, after the 14th August, could not have
inspected the iron while being manufactured ; and that Mr. Reed,
after visiting the works, was not dissatisfied with the Rails, as
alleged by Mr. Scovil ; and consequently that the responsibility
attaching to the transaction necessarily rests upon the late
Commissioners.

I now leave the whole question to the calm consideration of a
discerning public.

S. L. TILLEY.

Fredericton, 1st February, 1859.

'■:

•M

i fi ■

■i