'Summary of correspondence relative to surveying operations and river conservancy in Mesopotamia' [‎34r] (67/96)

.55
3 bundle poles Nos. 180,182,183,
11 bamboos.
1 empty barrel No. 70.
1 case.
1 case coal tar,
also
(20 steel pilings).
(about 5 to 600 pieces scantlings),
(Sd.)
Master,
Enclosure.
Dated Bombay, the June 1916.
From— Captain E. J. C. Hordern,
To—The Director of the Royal Indian Marine, Bombay.
In accordance with your orders I have the honour to make the following report
on the Government of India's letter No, 111-3784, dated the 11th May 1916, with
an enclosure, from Mr. Eenfrew to Sir George Buchanan.
Reference Government of India's letter paragraph 4 and Mr. Niven's state
ment paragraph 7. At this length of time it is very difficult to remember my
exact words to Mr. Niven, but in the course of conversation regarding the
acceleration of the despatch of the dredger to Mesopotamia, I have no doubt that
I did mention to Mr. Niven, that the idea was mooted, to send the dredger direct
to Mesopotamia but only as an idea to accelerate her arrival—and there had been
a discussion on the subject because as the dreclger had been working with a cracked
pump in Burma, it was thought, she might therefore continue to do the same in
Mesopotamia until tlie new pump could be made arfli sent up from Bombay, but
after the question this plan was abandoned as being impracticable. I am certain
I never mentioned that the dredger would go direct to Mesopotamia as stated by
Mr. Niven, but only that she might.
With reference to Mr. Renfrew's letter I have the following remarks to
make.—
I did not tell Mr. Renfrew that Sir George Buchanan should have made all
arrangements for the pay of the dredger staff, but I may have said that I presumed
Sir George Buchanan had made ail arrangements because I understood he had
done so, and my reason for thinking this was the copy of a telegram, No. H.-188 j
dated 8th January 1916 from Marine, Simla, to the Director, Royal Indian
Marine, which stated that 44 all details in regard to Buchanan's personal survey
are being arranged for by him here direct with Burma Government " and I read
this to mean that these details included his staff and also their pay, and I did not
know anything about his staff or their pay. but I gave orders to the Chief Account
ant to advance Mr. Renfrew any amount that he required and to forward the bills
to Sir George Buchanan and this was done. It is difficult therefore to understand
what Mr. Renfrew means by his statement.
I have no recollection whatever of telling Mr. Renfrew that I considered the
changing of dredgers a waste of money or of any such statement, though I may m
the course of conversation, (with an expert such as Mr. Renfrew is supposed to be)
have said that it was a pity that the dredgers Government had already spent so
much money on were not considered fit for the work, and if I did so, it was no
with any idea of getting any explanation from him but merely to inform him that
other dredgers had been pronounced unsuitable. I regret that I discussed tne
matter at all with him but I thought it was a matter of interest to him.
With regard to paragraph 2 and Mr. Renfrew's statement regarding the
cases he states that he found lying about the dockyard, his statements ^may
be perfectly correct, but I would point out that there were absolutely no direc
tions or lables on the cases and it was this very difficulty that made it so hard
to collect the stores for onward shipment. I can see no reason whatever wliy
Mr. Renfrew should not have visited me whenever he desired and m any case