VINCENT COUNTY COUNCIL.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1112, 24 August 1883, Page 3

VINCENT COUNTY COUNCIL.

A special meeting of the Council was held on Friday, the.l7th inst., at 2 p.m. Present—Wm. Fraser, Esq. jChatrmitt), , and Councillors Pitches, Macgiuuis, Col dough, and M ‘Cartlry. I The Chairman stated the object of the , meeting was to consider into the sit' jeot matter of the motion tabled by Or. Mac gimps re dummy tenderers, fie also said ' that by oitcula" he had invited the atten lance of Donald Hutton and Patrick Thomas, two tenderers, whose names were . embodied in the motion ; also had requested the Engineer to attend the meeting with the tenders, and all papers and corres- ‘ ponileiice in connection with Contracts Eos. 96 ami 103. Copies of the circulars wore read, as also ( the replies as follows, from Hutton and Thomas, also letter from Cr. Mackellar. ‘ “Arrowtown, • 5 “ August llth, 1833 ■ “ Sir—l received your note about Contract No. 96, hut I am sorry my present engagements will not permit my attend- , ance at Clyde on Wednesday next, as I am ( engaged on a contract up here which I cannot conveniently leave. “ 1 was the contractor for No. 96, and I believe finished it to the satisfaction of the \ County Engineer. j “ It was settled up with me hy Mr j Mackellar, to whom I gave an order on the County for the am unt due, which order I ‘ believe was not for months after. “ B -sides, my present engagements, j which is important enough to me, I have an impression that there is some personal j spite behind the motion which required j von letter, and I decline to be mixed in anything of that kind. I say this without j meaning any disrespect to yourself under ( t ie circumstances. “I hope you will excuse my attendance. “ 1 am your obedient servant, ‘ “D. Hutton.” ’ “ Cromwell, ' “ August 14th. 1883 s “ Sir—T duly received your note eh- j closing a copy of a resolution by the County ( Council, and referring to my contract No. , 103 When 1 explain my position in con- ( t>- ice you will see thexe is no necessity for my attendance at Clyde, or my occupation ‘ of the Council’s time in any investigation concerning it. ■ * “ I tendered for the contract with the j consent and by the advise of 'MfMackellar, who was at tile time upon the point of c severing his connection with the firm i f j Grant and Macke Jar, and I believe his indention at the time was that-in cnee the ( business went into strange hands that 1 | should have certain work for some time at | any rate. , After I had secured the contract, I wa* lo'd by Mr Mackellar that- the Chairman was desirous of hanging the work up till the Council was in funds and as I happened J to have full employment otherwise, I of , course consented. “ t always was willing, and am now ( ready to proceed with the work whenever i he Engineer instructs me that ho wisli s the work to go on, and I may say tha I ' have the timber Slacked and ready for the purnnse “1 have no reason ti think 1 was ( wr ugly informed when Mr Mackellar told mo Mr Mae ..in nis wanted the work post pound. If I was that is the only error I have oeramitied in conucerion with ihe contract. “ 1 am. Sir, ‘•You obedient servant, 1 “ I’atrick Thomas - " 1 i “ Cromwell. “August 10th, 1863. “ Sir— At the list meeting of the County Gounod you wi 1 remember tb.it ; fr r Mr Macginnis had in i mated his intention of e line ting me wi hj the motion of which lie had given notic°. I sai I I would net att-.-n i any in e ing of Committee unless I were furnished wi hj a written statement of tlie grounds upon wh ch Mr M ic dimis iniended o base his ullages Ymi will also - remember that I aai-i I would willingly attend if I wore furnished with that state mem “Tam in receipt of the ordinary notice of meeting, and nothing m ire. “ [shall not. ■ here, me, be present at to. morrow’s meeting to discuss a master, which presumedly is imende I as an att-ck noon m self, seeing that the conditionmentioned above have no - been c mabed with. It would be unp oti a’de to ,-i nply have n -nary discussion uoo . the ma t-r. 1 “ Mr M icilnu s, 1 un convinced, is m i ing in the • ir-oti-m simplv from pers ma spile an if the Council ch mse to follow i his lea !, ot con s« 1 am powerless to pre- * vent i- “ I am Sir, “Your obedient servant. “ L) Mackellar.” The Chabman said he was not aware it was in’en led to formulate any direct chirge- against Cr Mackellar Cr Maciimils denie ’ most ernpbati.-a’iy that the molion was the o temne of nnv spile against Cr Maokeliar Ce min facts bad come in his know) dge dnnn. the time h-hel i tdie chair, an I he console e l that neither to the D u mil or to the general sidy of he. ra eoayers .von'd ho have done his duty hid he rem i ted si e t. Cr Colei n-jh said it « won; for Ci Mackel ar to impute the m un-i o spite. I.ut admitting for the s ke of argnraeii such to be the case it was no answe’ and no reason wiiy h- should not atten -. The n -iic, through bis absence, would pre j dg- the case against him, He could not Hat exp ess hi' extreme re- ret tha* Cr Mackel ar was absent, because he mi h' have hj en able to p it a vcy diff-renf f icon thin s, and settle I it ei her one w y o the oTiec. The Chairman asked if the molion was •n he discusse.l in open Council or in Committee. Cr Pitches thought as Councillors would necessarily require to speik more than once, it s mul l n- in Commit ee. hut not. to exclude the public, except ihe discussion got t -n pe sonal. Cr M icgiin- s hod noth'ng p rscnal to s y avali’st anyone, au-1 Hum lit the pub.ic slionld hear the who’e ibs mssioo. Jr. was resolved that th Council go into Committee with open door*. The Chaiiman sai l, before going into the question, it would he well to deci *e how far the enq ii y shonl 1 go into Ltonahl Hutton’s f'ootract. No. 94. rep iis t-> Cromwell Bridge, as it was to he borne in mind that that contract was finished- and paid for long -inec. Or Colelough was of the opinion that the enquiry should no in*o both con’racts, as strong preemptive evidence might be ad- ■ duced in dealing with Hutton’s contract, 1 that would materially affect the other. 1 j The Chairman thought the enquiry was no so much to go into matters that were past and gone, as to lay down such a course 1 as wifi prevent Councillors from having 1 anything to do with contracts let by ihe 1 Council. ’ ' ... ■ Cr Macginni-Jsaid what he had in .view in ’ tabling his mniiou was to ascertain if Hut--1 ton and Thomas were the real tenderers, or who were,and to expose the whole transac--1 tion, as it was the duty of the Council to expose any and all abuses found to exist. | Th* Etypossr wm called ia and laid an

the table the tenders and all papers asked i fur Af-er these were closely scrutiniseu in reply to questions. The Engineer said contract No. 96—re i pul s to Cromwell bridge was signed by Donald Hai.tun. There were two i men working on the job, viz., Patriot i T ininas and Oiyiord. Tneso man L I li ve indy km.Wn as in the empty of i nr Mackellar, Huttou was engaged rs | career on the o- ntract. During die pro- i g ess "f the contract Hutton never consulted I me. It ia oust-unary for the contract r to consult the ring! ie«r during the progress of I the work. Tha contrao . was not comm-nee I until the actual lime for its completion had c arrived. I wiote to Hutton ami told him 1 the contract would be cancelled if it was not I p oceede l with at once. Mr Mackellar saw ' me in reference to this letter, and explained - that "he delay was caused through the non- t arrival of timber. Ho did not say he was I speaking as aieur, for Mr Hatton. My im ■ pression was that he was speaking as the f contractor. Ou o onpletioii of tha contract there was a question anout certain iron work I ma le deductions for. As instructed i hy the Council, £ arranged the diffi :u tv i with Mr M'Kollar. He ue erat any time told ma he was the contrac or. He never c at any time wrote to ma officially about the n contract, he wrote me a private letter. Mr Mackellar arranged vemally with me for carrying ou the contract. I never saw Hutton in 'he mad er. Mr Mackellar spoke always as if the con raot was his. Taking all the circumstances of the case in’o consideration, I can only think the Mr Mackellar was the contractor. Cr. Cololough here said : 1 feel it an j honset impulse to sa,’that all the Council , lors are much to b ame in the matter, awhen the contract was let it was pret.tv well known chat Mr Mackellar was the contractor. _ 1 Crs Macginnis and Pitches denied having I any such knowledge, each saying that it i was not till the question of the iron work ' dispute cropped up, that they had any sue piomn. Tue Engineer in rep’y to further questions said: 1 know Patrick Thomas. He has <■ never held a contract under the county. At ‘ the time of bis tendering f >r contract No. 1 103, repairs to Macandrew Bridge, he was in ' the emplo. of Mr Mackellar. Thomas never 1 spoke to me about the contract being hum 1 up. Mr Mackellar wanted me to substitute > some new timber for some old that 1 had I arranged should be used on the work. He - never spoke to me about going on with the < contract He never spoke to me as Thomas’s * agent. He always spoke as on his own he r half. All the coi respondence respecting this < contract was from Mr Mackellar. Tub t signature to the tender is Patrick Thomas’s, t but the writi .g I be'ieve to be Mr Mackel- ! t lar’s. The deposit cheque bears Mr Mac- ' kellar’s si mature. I am of the opinion that a Mr Mackellar was the contractor for both 1 No 96 and 103. I never saw Hutton in re- c ga-d to No 96. A man named Foreman ha I 1 complained to mo of not having been abie i to see the p'ans and conditions of contnci t No. 103, until the morning the tenders ' closed. Ur J idy, in whose office they were s deposited, always saying they were out. f Accordingly, with the telegram of his ten I der, he was unable to forward the nee - ssary 1 deposit. This tender was the lowest by t T25, bat coni I not be accepted, no deposit ' being lodged. I have heard that 'hrse t plans were sent to Dunedin to Mr Mack dlar < by Or Joilv. Mr Mackellar telegraphei ’ from Dunedin to mo for the plans, bn - I re- < fus d to rend them. * Cr Macginnis sai l that several letters, * received from parties enmp aining of having • b on enable to see the plans, etc., of Co i- ‘ t ■ -ct No. 103 have nnaooonntabiy disap ' peared out of the offi e Amongst th-m ' was one from Mi- F .reman, and a teleg am ‘ from Mr Jolly, to tlie effect that he had ' sent tlie plans etc., to Dunedin. * ] Cr Colelough said : 1 have known both . Nation end Thomas since they were chilIron ; an I I know that they have always worked Im Messrs C-r.-mt an I Mackellar un- j til a few weeks ago, when Huttou went to Macecown. Mr Mackellar, when speaking of them, says “ My young Men." Since the tabling of Cr. Macginnis’.-) motion, Hutton t Id me in the presence of others, that he was not the c m tractor for N i. 96. I said, | j kingly to him, “ 1 suppose you received a £5 n ate for the use of your name.’’ “He replied “ [ got more than that ; I got Lls but I would lather have had the contract, as it was a very payable ono.” From this I cone u le that Mr Mackellar was the real contractor. Cr Macginnis said the tenders in question were let whilst I was Chairman, an t from certain circumstances that came under my no ice, 1 was impressed with the belief that | either Huttou or Thom s were ihe actual 1 con i actors. On one occasion being in ' onwell, I saw Mr Mack -liar, who said. I suppose y m know who Patrick Thomas >s T’ i replie 1 that I have my suspicions He then said it is me, and as I have plenty of work on hand just no v, and as the finances of the Cnimfcv are not the straightest. y ni on have ihe contract hung up for a rime. Cr McCarthy detailed a conversation Mr vlankella- had had whhhim on the subject, but which did not particularly beir on the q H stain. Cr Macginnis said, to his mind, the case Was proved. Cr McCarthy sai I, though there was among presumprive evidence, there was no propf The ’Chairman : The only duty of this Council ia to hear evidence and make it puolic. This was no place to do anything further. It was for the ratepayers to take action, ho could not but think this enquiry ought io have been made sooner. Cr Pilches thought enough proof was given to warrant the Council in cancelling ihe contract of Thomas, but what to no wi hj the deposit be did not know. He would suggest that the substance of the evi 1 nee taken be minute 1 in the proceed mgs of the Council for future leferenca. Cr Macginnis, before any divi ion was a'l ived at, desired to assure the Cnunci that in tahiing the mo inn he was not actuated by any spite or ill feeling to Mr Mackellar, as had been imputed to him. ■ eithtf' - did he act with the view of punish ing Mr Mackellar, or doing him any hirm. His sense of public duty alone u ge 1 him. ami it was not until after mature cousi eration. and tneu with great reluctance, that ho took the step. Mr Mackellar was an in tsldgent man, and sjiouh have been the very last to do as he had done. Cr Colelough sail Mr M‘Kellar all through the piece had pnoh-p 'died th motion, and looked up in the inquiry as only a waste o' tun,;.; hut as io has assumed a very serious aspecand charges virtually formulated, he thought it would be only a i act of grace and justice Io Mr Macke'lar to give him a chui.ee ot explaining before the pioceedin.a were minuted. Cr Marrinnis did n it think it would be wise to keep tiie minutes taken out of the rec irds. if Mr Mackellar feel himself agrieved he can move for them to he expunged, and then the whole matter can he i brought up again. - Cr Pitches did not think it would he wise i to keep the proceedings secret, but that . was not likely to be. as the Press was in attendance, who would be sure to publish I it. He must press for the evidence taken i j bring minuted. I The Chairman agreed that a record k should be made of the. evidence. By merely

ordering the evidence taken to lay on the. table, would he to simply to stultify itself. The following motions were tIK-n in due ecu so cai-rie I. 1. iVhilst ao-nowlelging that there is ho a .s.ilute legal o oof ih.t Donald Hn'toii was nn. he real con raco for contract No. 96, th i Committee c nimit refrain (after hearing the County Engm .or’s eviffenc ) from expressing their opinion that Cr Mackellar was beneficially interested in the said Contract. 2 That the Committee are of opinion that theevilenoo f the Engine-r. au-1 of Crs. Colelough and Maogiiims, together with tlie doeamentary evi.le.ice, o .nivots Cr. Mackellar’s name too closely wi. hj contract No. 103 ’o justify them in permitting Patrick Th ma. to proceed wtih the work. Further, ihat Patrick Thomas in declining to attend this enquiry and support the genuineness of ids signature to the tender has strengthened 'be Committee in the opinion they hive f cm. d 3. 'J hat contract No 103 be cancelled. 4. That the evidence of the Engineer and of ~ rs. t.ohlough and Macginnis be recorded in the minmes. The Council then resumed and a report of the i o nmittee, emuoityiug the above morions, was put and declared carried unannimisly. The muring then dissolved.