THE Grey River Argus. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1869.

Grey River Argus, Volume VIII, Issue 581, 7 October 1869, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1869.

At last those members of the Public Works Committee of the County Council who have desired to get rid of the County Engineer, Mr Rochfort, have succeeded in their amiable purpose. When the Council met for prorogation, on Friday morning, Mr Harrison recommended the rejection of the Report of the Committee on the ground that it stated as reasons for Mr Rochfort's dismissal assumed facts to which the evidence taken did not in the slightest degree relate. It will be remembered that a short time ago the Committee brought up a long report, bringing several charges against the Engineer; that Report was Bent back, and the Com-_ fort's evidence on the matters complained of, that trifling ceremony having been hitherto neglected by the Committee. Well, the Report goes back, and the Committee examine Mr Rochfort. The result is that when Report No. 2 comes forward the heavy charges mentioned in Report No. 1 are set aside, and the Committee simply content themselves by telling the Council that they have taken ' ' voluminous evidence" on the matter complained of, and recommend that as no public works of any magnitude are likely to be undertaken during the next half-year, the services of the County Engineer be dispensed with, and that he receive six months' salary as compensation for loss of office. One would imagine from the latter portion of the Report that the Committee hf.d taken evidence as to the fact that no public works were to be undertaken. Taken into connection with the order of reference to the Committee, and the nature of the enquiry, the Report, and particularly the last part of it, is non scqnitur of the absurdest character. Ultimately, on the motion of Mr Harrison, the Report which was adopted in the morning was rescinded in the afternoon, and the first portion struck out, so as to make it appear that Mr Rochfort's services were dispensed with solely on account of the stoppage of public' works. As the particulars of the complaints made against Mr Rochfort are not very well known, we will endeavor to give our readers an outline of the various cases as borne out by the evidence : — A number of contractors who conceived they had been harßlily treated by the Engineer, instead of seeking their remedy in the ordinary manner, petitioned the County Council, and a Committee was appointee!, of which Mr De las Carreras was chairman. The petitioners were Chisholm and M'Lean, J. C. Kellock, Greville and O'Connor, and C. Hungerford, each of whom had Borne claim for compensation to prefer. It was upon the unsworn testimony of these interested witnesses alone that the Committee brought up its first sweeping Report against Mr Rochfort, and upon it alone did they recommend the dismissal of the Engineer. They did take Mr Rochfort's evidence in one single case, but the Committee solemnly set it aside, and relied only upon that of the contractors, In this case (Chisholm and. M'Lean) the contractors endeavored to prove that Mr Rochfort had not given them a fair progress payment, and that for that reason they were unable to carry on their contract, Mr Rochfort's evidence jtroves that the contractors had no right to any progress payment at all, as clause 4 of the contract stated that before any money can be claimed by the contractor, the Engineer must certify in writing that

there is work done to his satisfaction to the value of 25 per cent, more than the contractor claims. Mr Rochfort asserts to the Committee, and proves by other testimony, that the work was not done according to specification, and he would clearly have been guilty of a great dereliction of duty had he vouched for that which he believed to be untrue. And yet the Committee, admitting that the evidence of the contractor is diametrically opposed to that of the Engineer, actually recommend that £75 be given to the petitioner, and censure Mr Rochfort for not having supplied him with plans and sections of the work to be done, although he had a pegged line to go by, and an overseer to point out the work needed ! Kellock's case is exactly similar to that of Chisholm and M'Leau, and although Mr Rochfort asserts that he could not conscientiously have given the petitioner a larger progress payment than he did, the Committee recommended that £50 be awarded as compensation. Greville and O'Connor's case is as follows: — Certain sections of road were tendered for by these persons, their tender was accepted by Messrs Bonar and Hoos, and a contract drawn up in the usual manner. It appears that in their tender was a stipulation that for any section beyond a certain distance they would charge 10 per cent. more. This fact was not mentioned to Mr Rochfort when the contract was drawn up, and the contractors actually signed the contract without this stipulation being v entioned. There was certain work upon which the contractors claimed this extra 10 per cent., but Mr Rochfort, who would recognise nothing but the contract, refused to certify for it. They also complained that they received no progress payment, for which the Committee blame Mr Rochfort, although he affirms that he did forward vouchers to the County Chairman's office for payments to the extent of 75 per cent, of the work done. It has since transpired that it was the fault of the late Treasurer that the men did not receive their money. Hungerford's case is this : — He undertook to repair the dam on the Hokitika river ; before he completed it a flood swept away a portion of the work, and Mr Rochfort refused to make him any allowance. Mr Rochfort's answer to this is that the damage Hungerford speaks of, which gave him extra work, occurred several days after his contract time had expired, and was entirely through his own neglect in not pushing on the work with proper speed. The engineers brought forward by the contractors all agree that under the circumstances they would have acted in the same manner that Mr Rochfort did. The Committee, however, consider Hungerford entitled to compensation, and i rn-Tn x nf T g/v <=> » have now a fair and concise history of the complaiuts against Mr Rochfort, who for anything that has been proved against him, has been dismissed for having conscientiously performed his duty to the couutry. A nice precedent surely ! For the future it may be safely predicted that no Eugineer who may be employed by the Council will place himself in the position that Mr Rochfort has found himself. He will find it the safest plan so to " square it" with the contractors as to enable him to go on smoothly without being subject to a Committee which has evidently adop .ed the principle that it is the duty of the Engineer to protect the contractors, and not the Government, whose servant he is.