COUNCILLOR AND ENGINEER.— AN EXPLANATION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 351, 8 April 1911, Page 5

COUNCILLOR AND ENGINEER.— AN EXPLANATION.

To The Editor. Sir, —The remarks in your last week's issue under the above heading would tend to lead the ratepayers to suppose that I am in favour of increasing the prices for 'the supply of metal. This is not so. The facts leading up to the so-called "fuss," are as follows:—The Borough Council received an offer in writing from Mr Lewer agreeing to supply gravel at 4s per cubic yard on the flats, and 5s on the hillsides. The offer was accepted, and the Engineer authorised to put the work in hand. Some time after the work had commenced the Engineer considered the quality of gravel supplied was inferior, and condemned some of it and ordered it to be placed at the road side. At the same time the contractor was ordered to screen any further gravel before putting it on the road. At this stage complaints were made to Councillor Young and myself (members of the works committee) concerning the condemned gravel. The work, however, proceeded without further complaint. At the last meeting of the Borough Council a letter, not a "complaint," was read from Contractor Julian stating that the Engineer required him to improve on the quality of gravel, and that no better was available unless it was screened. If compelled to do this lie asked to be allowed the same consideration as that paid to Mr Lewer. Acting under the advice of the Engineer, the Council refused his request. As [ was not previously aware that an extra fourteen pence per cuhic yard was being allowed to Mr Lewer for screening, I was naturally surprised, and used the words mentioned: "If contractor number one is entitled to extra for screening, I consider contractor number two should be entitled to the same consideration." Ido not, however, consider that it is necessary to screen the gravel lying between the Government quarry and the Waiteti stream, as the greater quantity only contains about 20 to 25 per cent of good binding sand and grit. I would much prefer to allow the sand to remain for the purpose of binding the metal, than to pay for screening as above mentioned, and afterwards use pumice and clay for blinding. But if the Engineer thinks otherwise, then both contractors should be treated alike, and if one is paid for the work of screening, the other should also. The Mayor and. Engineer consider Mr Lewer's offer for carting gravel was for the "carting only," while I maintain that the offer was for the "supply" of gravel of approved quality, and that no extra allowance should have been made by the Engineer except on the recommendation of the works committee. The fact that complaints as above mentioned were made concerning the gravel carted by Mr Lewer, and afterwards condemned bv the Engineer, proves conclusively that the Mayor's i ruling that "the question of quality ! ami that of carting had no connec- : tion" is a wrong one. If Mr Lewer was not concerned with the quality of ; the grave!, why did he complain when 'it was condemned? Why should he | care if all the gravel were condemned i if he was a contractor for carting i only?—I am, etc., | A. JULIAN.