CORRESPONDENCE.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 258, 8 September 1874, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE.

[We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents.]

THE HOSPITAL TENDERS. To the Editor of the Cromwell Argus,

Sir, — Although advertisements requesting tenders for any specified piece of work have almost invariably the proviso, that the lowest or any tender will not necessarily be accepted, yet it is generally understood that, with respect to buildings of public trust, unless some tangible reason can be assigned for an opposite course, the lowest will be accepted. As the lowest tender was not accepted in the case of the Hospital buillirig about to be erected in Cromwell, the question naturally crops up,— What were the Committee's reasons for not accepting the lowest ? To assure the public that there was no undue favouritism, I think it behoves those gentlemen to give an explanation of their reasons, and to enquire why their Secretary allowed some of the parties tendering to have absolute possession for a time of the plans and specifications while to others (myself for instance) that privilege was denied ; also to state why at the eleventh hour they demanded a deposit of

£25, when contractors were previously given to understand nothing of the kind would be required. To prevent any misconception as to the spirit by whioh I am actuated in writing the above, it perhaps may be as well for me to state that of the four tenders sent in, mine was the highest. I am, &c., John M'Donald. Quartz Reef Point, Sept. 7, 1874.

To the Editor of the Cromwell Argus. Sir, —In compliance with an advertisement in the last issue of your paper, calling for tenders for the erection of an Hospital, I went to the trouble of procuring and studying the plans and specifications.. [ also prepared a tender, which I lodged, together with the necessary deposit, with the Secretary to the Hospital Committee. I am informed that my tender for the final completion of the building was the lowest, the sum being £1125; but to my surprise I am led to understand that the job was given to one of the Committee, whose tender was for £1135. The gentleman to whom I allude is Mr James Taylor. I have been trying to discover how the Committee arrived at this, to me, strange and unaccountable decision, and two reasons therefor have been assigned to me. One is, that Mr Taylor had a losing contract a short time ago, and the Committee gave him this with a view of enabling him to redeem the money he had lost on the former one. Respecting this reason, as to whether Mr Taylor had a losing contract, or as to.whether this is a pa}ing contract or not, these are questions that have nothing to do with the matter in hand. If the Committee intended to give the job to any particular individual, what necessity existed for calling for tenders ? Surely the Committee, as a Committee, did not intend to injure or even insult the other contractors, as well as myself, although I am open to confess that by the course they have adopted they have accomplished both. The other reason that I have heard assigned for my contract not being accepted is, that I was known to be a Good Templar, and in consequence of this, certain publicans, members of the august Committee, took a determined stand against me, and that they were successful in accomplishing their desired purpose we have positive proof. But the fairness of their decision I wish to call in question, leaving the subscribers and the public at large to draw their own conclusions, and judge for theuiselvfs as to whether the members of Committee before alluded to were influenced by private motives or personal interests. It is a matter that deserves i especial consideration, for if such be the case* the public "Interest i 3 certainly submissive to the Committee. I contend that whether Mr Taylor's past contracts paid him or not, it was unjust to advance that as a special reason why he should be so highly favoured and privileged, to the exclusion of all others. It was a public building that was to be erected, and the public have to pay for it, and I flatter myself that I was in a position to duly execute the work to the satisfaction of the architect, or any other competent person ; and I should have been prepared to give any reasonable security for the due performance of the contract, had !my tender been accepted. With regard to the fact "that I am a Good Templar, the time will in all probability come when it will be considered no disgrace to belong to that honourable Order.' . So far as lam concerned, I am happy to say that the time has not yet come when it is necessary for me to deny my principles or desert my colours for the purpose of securing the good wishes and support of certain publichouse landlords, ■ who happen to be misplaced on public committees. If I cannot get contracts by fair competition, I do not want them at all, and if it is to be understood that the necessary qualification to be successful in tendering for public works,: and to secure reasonable peace during the performance of the said works, is to patronise certain publichouses, then, if it has come to that, the sooner public attention is directed to the matter the better. I must say 1 have been done an injustice to, and in my opinion the public institution has suffered, and will suffer till confidence is restored in those acting aa custodians of the public trust. Certain members of Committee, not satisfied with what they have achieved to my detriment in connection with this matter, iand doubtless emboldened by the success already accomplished, have dared in a sneaking fashion to attack my character and reputation ; and altlnugh I can afford to treat them with contempt, yet to such I say : He who steals my purse steals trash; 'Tis something—nothing; 'twas mine—'tis his, And has been slaves to thousands. But he that niches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches him But leaves me poor indeed. I am, &c, William Grant,' Builder, Cromwell.

To the Editor of the Cromwell Argux

Sir,—Tis strange to say that in nearlj all human affairs, the persons who are placed in positions of trust and confidence are the leist able to fill them with credit to themselves or justice to the community. The letting of tie contract for the Cromwell District Hospital goej to prove the above to be true. How the Com I mittee can justify their action in rejecting the! lowest tender and accepting the one next to it remains to be proved. That the action taken in the matter is wrong in principle, nearly all will admit (except the members of the Committee, although even some of them will admit it), the more particularly when every exertion is being made to raise funds to carry out the objects of the insti ution. The Committee would make it appear that they are in a position to squander away the sum of £lO. But that is not the worst consequence in connection with this piece of what may almost be called jobbery. The confidence of many of the subscribers is shaken, and I unhesitatingly say that many who promised subscriptions will not pay when called upon to do so. Nor can it be expected that those gentlemen who put down their names for large sums will endorse the action of the Committee, who, from ill-feeling or otherwise to the one tenderer, and favouritism to the other, think fit wantonly to squander the funds of the institution, without a single word of explanation as yet. The question may be asked, —Does the majority of the subscribers endorse the action of the Committee n this matter ? If so, then a precedent ia estab-

liahecj fur future guidance in dfa'irg with tenders, auch as those for supplies of bread, gm. eerie*, etc. Not the lowest tenders, but those ot the favourites, will be accepted. It is evident the Committee are not acquainted with tho- spirit of teudeiing, or they would have necessarily acted otherwise. For that, perhaps, their ignorauee may be pleaded as an excuse. For their information, I may tell them the lowest tenderer may demand the contract, if he be in a position to carry out the work in a proper and efficient manner, though not otherwise. It is to be hoped the Committee will explain their reasons satisfactorily.for so acting, and at an early ddte. Justice demands a full explanation. But I fear there is a screw loose. Already some of the members of Committee are exhibiting qualms of c .nscience, and do not feel greatly at ease in the matter. Some of the members have apparently got consciences of an elasticwell, no, I shan't say it. That a serious injury has been done to the best interests of the institution is apparent to all, and until confidence is restored, the institution will suffer irreparable injury. The injury is of a fourfold nature :—l. The action of the Committee is wrong in principle. 2. The funds of the Hospital have been misspent. 3. Subscriptions which would have been given will now be refused. 4. Inasmuch as subscriptions are lost, so will the Government subsidy be lessened. With all this before us, there is surely a pressing necessity for a full investigation of the matter.—l am, &c, Fairplay. Cromwell, September 7, 1874.