The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3740, 11 July 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1883.

Ip it were not for the fact that tlic story may be of use to other local-governing-bodies there would be nothing- at all in the triangular dispute that has arisen between the Resident Engineer, tho AVaipawa County Council, and the AVaipukurau Road Board. If it had not been attempted to attach blame where no blame is due wo rather think we should havo taken no notice of the matter. The whole story lies in a nutshell. The AVaipawa County Council applied for a certain sum of money under the Roads and Bridges 'Construction Act, a portion of which—£l3so—was to be spent on theAVaipukurau-AVallingford road. Mr Smith, M.H.R., as chairman of the AVaipukurau Road Board, verbally requested tho Resident Engineer to inspect and certify to the work and money spent in the Board's district, in order that tlic grant could be obtained from the Government. Under the Act it is necessary, before a claim can be put in for a grant, that a properly appointed officer should certify that the works specified in the application for the grant should have been carried out to the extent of one-third of the total amount applied for. In this case, Mr J. T; Carr, the Resident Engineer, was the appointed ofiiccr. On learning Mr Smith's desire that the works in the Waipukurau district should bo ■ certi„od to, Mr Carr telegraphed to AVellington for instructions, and on receiving them appointed the oth of June to inspect the work. On that day lie rnx-t Mr Smith in that.gentleman's store. Mr Carr states in a letter to tho chairman of the County Council that he then " asked for the plans and specifications as a guide to what work was included in the grant. Thoy were not forthcoming, but Mr Smith explained that the grant had been issued as a whole, to be spent on tho road as the Council thought best." Mr Carr then rode with the overseer along the road, and was- pointed out the works that it was said haa been constructed under the grant system. Mr Oarr then returned to AVaipukurau, and says in his letter —"I fold: Mr: Smith . that I was not at all satisfied that all the work I had seen had been done under the grant system, and could-be classed as new works; but that I had estimated the work I had seen altogether at about £1150, and I was only required to certify to £450, so that if he could satisfy me that the work, or the greater part of it ; had been executed under

tho grant system, I would certify. He then assured'me that the work had been so executed, and that as regards new works, the Minister, with the knowledge of what was intended to be done with the money, had granted it for the Council to spend as they thought best." Mr Carr then gave the required certificate, but shortly afterwards, for reasons that appeared to him to be sufficient, ho telegraphed to AVellington requesting that it should be suspended pending further enquiries. That he was thoroughly justified in causing the suspension of "the certificate seems plain from what has since transpired. Mr Carr's letter of explanation to tho Council evoked a considerable amount of feeling, and ono of Mr Smith's injudicious advocates has taken the trouble to publish the literal transcription of a shorthand reporter's notes of what Mr Newman said in the Council. Unfortunately the reporter appears to be new to his work ; but, from the jumble he made _of the speech we gather —if anything can be gathered at all — that tho then county overseer, Mr Mackay, had not included in his plans the particular works over which Mr Carr was shown by the Board's overseer. "It hacl been intended that the work shown should be done, but tho work which the Board had thought had been done under the Act had not been placed on Mackay's plans. There was an error, but it was entirely unintentional. The Board had neglected to get Mackay to put it in the specifications, and that was the only mistake. If the claim could not be urged on the works done any mistake would simply mean that the Board would have to begin over again and do all the work specified." AA r e think there is no necessity to go further than what the abovo reveals. It would seem that there had been an unintentional error, inasmuch as the works shown to Mr Carr as haA-ing been done under the Act had not in reality been so Undertaken, because they had not been jilaced on the plans upon which, apparently, tho Government would be guided as to tho advisability of making the grant. If this circumstance had come to the knowledge of Mr Carr before making his inspection he would neither havo inspected the works nor granted his certificate. Now that the facts of the case have come to light, we think Mr Carr was thoroughly justified in causing the certificate to be suspended. We could say something more upon the subject, but as (here is a likelihood of an enquiry beingmade into the matter Aye prefer letting it rest where it is.