THE TAY BRIDGE REPORT.
[To THE Eprroa or THE " SPECTATOR."' SIR,—Your well-known fairness will, I am sure, induce you to let me point out that your article on the Tay-Bridge Reports was written under a misconception (very pardonable, under the circumstances) as to the facts. The article proceeds on the assumption that there is entire agreement between Mr. Rothery and his colleagues as to their conclusions, and that the only difference between them is as to whether those conclusions should be stated. You were clearly entitled at the time to make this assumption, as Mr. Rothery distinctly declares it to be a fact.
The letter of Colonel Yolland and Mr. Barlow, which appears in to-day's papers, as explicitly states that Mr. Rothery was not warranted in making that representation. The case, there- fore, resolves itself into this. Upon an inquiry, involving in the essence of it intricate questions of engineering science, a tribunal is appointed, composed of two engineers of great eminence, and a third gentleman, who, whatever his abilities in other respects, has no knowledge or experience of engineering. The two engineers have come to certain conclusions, and stated -them. The other member of the court has made a separate report, justly described by you as a "tremendous condemnation of Sir Thomas Bouch," in which he has not hesitated to draw conclusions on engineering questions not endorsed by his col- leagues ; and he has given that report additional weight in the -eyes of the public by representing, as it now appears unwarrant- ably, his colleagues as concurring in it. I leave you to judge which of these reports is really entitled to the greater consider- ation.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
