THE CHARGES AGAINST THE DISTRICT SURVEYOR.

Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 967, 1 September 1871, Page 2

THE CHARGES AGAINST THE DISTRICT SURVEYOR.

''-£-.'; .;... .. s t* r i* ' • ' ••■' The following is' a copy of the Examiners' report appointed to enquire into certain charges made by the Chief Surveyor againsj .Mr Qp^r^jr, Jurveyou ju chargedthe Grey District, and which was lately laid befpre* the .Ooiftity Gouricil- J4- i'\) The charges laid before us by the Chief *SurveyoF=are»aJ3"Mlowrr— "" ■^'»^^ Ist. i That Mr Cooper^ dttriri*'Government time, did private work without having obtained proper authority. ; • ''• 2nd, That Mr Cooper had ; taken an active paTt at political 'meeting?, contrary to the Civil Snrvice Regulations. 3rd. That Mr Cooper had ; been guilty' of neglect of duty as Purveyor in charge of the Grey district. . 4th. That Mr Cooper had, contrary to instructions, received, deposits fgr, mining and other surveys! and had riot accounted for them in his monthly returns, but lrvd handed them over to the Reeceiver of Land Revenue ,Borne time; after; receipt* thereof. The -Examiners took evidence offered in support of the above charges by Mr Mueller, the Chief Surveyor, Mr Murray, Mr O'Connor, - Mr Browning,- and the County Chairman.| in the presence of Mr Cooper, and also took the evideuce of Mr Cooper in reply, thereto, and the fullest liberty was given to both parties to crossexamine and re-examine. , After a very cafefril ; arid . patjientiiivestigation of all the circumstances of the case, and, of jthe ;evideiice; addufced, * the Examiners have come to the following conclusions: — < „-:;.: With regard to the first charge, the Examiners find j that a misunderstanding arose between the Chief Snrveyor and Mr Copper, in consequence of the County Chairman having given verbal instructions to Mr Cooper direct as to the survey and plans for a railway line for Messrs Kilgour and Perotti^ without acquainting the Chief Surveyor. We find that Mv Coopar, by the authority of the.County, Chairman, ' did a portion of the said work during the Easter holidays,., for which he received payment/ and' that the work was completed in Government time, for which he received no' payment, but-entaredWme'in' his diary in the usual cpur3e, he (Mr. Cooper), being under the Triipressiori that : snch was the County Chairman's desire. We find that with' regard to the completion 6i the^ work in Government time, Mr Cooper misconceived the County Chairman's instructions. We acquit iMri Copper altogeiher of having done private, work for his own emolument in Government time, arid we consider that all such instructions should be for warded, through, the head of the, department. ' ' " ' " ' " ' ' "With regard to the second charge, we tind that Mr Cooper ; i3id^atterid a pdlitical meeting, and gave there certain informal tion which he was requested to give by the Mayor of Greymouth. We consider this to have been jan error of judgment merely on the part of Mr Copper, and his attention having been "drawn to the regulation 1 , he stated that he had not intentionally infringed the regulation, and that he would avoid all cause pf similar com- ! plaint for the future. , With regard, to the third charge, we find that the work in the Grey Office is to some extent behindhand, but after going through a mass of very conflicting evidence on the subject, we are unable to say whether this state of circumstances has arisen from neglect of duty by Mr Cooper, or from the fact of his having been unable to keep pace with the work necessary to be done in such a large and scattered district as the Grey, but we are of opinion that by the exercise of a .little more energy Mr Cooper might have kept tlis office work closer up. Much of the cause of complaint hinged upon questions of ~a~ professional nature, ori which, of course, we are unable, to express -any decided opinion, and so many of the complaintsf dated back into the late Chief Surveyor's time, we do not feel ourselves called upon to question his' vigilance. From Mr Cooper's statement we ari led to believe that as he has now the assistance of a junior draughtsman in the officei ; he will ;be speedily overtaken, and will not be allowed to fall behind for the ■future. ' ' "' With regard to the fourth charge, we find that a circular letter was issued to tne District Surveyors forbidding them to ■. receivl deposits ou surveys, but if having been represented to the late Chief ' Surveyor that in many instances it would be an accommodation to the miners to be. allowed to hand tlieir deposits to the Surveyor, he forwarded a private note to Mr Cooper (produced to us) : in which ; ;he authorises Mr Cooper ' to -receive, such deposits fas the venicleof transmission from tb*e?miner to the' Receiver df G6ld : Revenue. We find that Mr Cooper did i receive certain small amounts, which he .did.. enter* in his monthly return, and which he retained for a time and handed them over periodically instead of handing, them in directlyr^Tfiiswe find to be a .very -undesirable course to pursue, and. although we can see that in such a scattered district as the Grey it may in faiany instances ,save the miners the necessity pf taking. a long journey to pay a' small deposit to, the nearest Gold Revenue. Receiver, we think the SurveyiSr should, if allowed,; to act as such vehicle^ immediately hand over the inoney'to the! Gold Revenue Receiver. Dated vat Hokitika the 18th day of August, l:B7l. ;<. v. -- «j , A Jas. A. Bonar. ipa.). G>W ,Harvey.